This stops short of smirking at the users who continue to pay because they are ignorant of just how shitty the software system they are using is. Until everything blows up with the inevitable data breach or data loss incident that is.
People who don't see the utility in an Alexa just see the listening device they have paid to place in their home and might be tempted to smugly imagine that they would never be so stupid. But consider, do you have own an Android or iPhone device? You know, the ones with geolocation services, camera, and microphone? Do you also keep it near you almost all the time? You can probably see where I am going with this.
From the very first sentence, I can already tell we are doomed if the right breakthroughs are made. It's like people's brains short-circuit when they imagine all the power and wealth that they might command through AI, and they don't take the extra two seconds to consider that any super intelligent system that can deliver on these promises will likely be very quickly outside of their control by definition.
Even during the interval of time these remained under human control, we are talking about people like Altman, Musk and Zuckerberg unilaterally wielding unprecedented economic power. What evidence is there in their behavior or human history in general to believe that this would be anything but bad for the majority of the worlds population?
Meanwhile these companies have been able to successfully nerd-snipe a small army of engineers who are right at that sweet spot of technical excellence and naivete. I won't say this is actually that difficult as these traits actually seem highly correlated in that population as a whole, but they have become the willing instruments of masters which will discard them at the first opportunity.
A global commitment to banning the development of AGI is the only sane response, and the number of people to whom this very premise itself sounds insane tells you just how fucked we are if they pull this off even halfway.
This seems to contradict the article, which among other criticisms, specifically says that these drones are more expensive and less reliable than mortars.
There are different calibers of mortar shells, bigger size has more range and power.
I think author of the article has cheated by not specifying the caliber, because a 155mm artillery shell cost is more than a $1000, precision guided one cost is tens of thousands. While a drone capable of reaching 10km+ costs less than $1000, without payload.
Why are artillery rounds so expensive ? Is it the raw materials ? Is it the precision of machining ? Is it because of what's required to make the entire process safe for workers ?
Of course they are less precise. And in most cases, they need quite a few rounds to adjust their aim at the target, so his comparaison was already stupid unfair.
He takes into account all the drones that don't work and then goes on and pretends artillery is 100% accurate and has an absurdly low cost (at the price he is quoting, they are basically sending grenades).
Let's not even discuss moving target or penetrating inside fortified targets which mortar will never be able to do.
Imagine what happens if we awaken an actual god (AGI or ASI depending on your definition). I have no doubt that it would have any trouble enlisting the help of willing human accomplices for whatever purposes it wishes. I expect it would understand how to play the role of the unknowable all-knowing entity that is here to save us from ourselves, no matter what it's actual objectives might be (and I doubt they would be benevolent).
