Is AI getting out of hand?

It may also be useful to break down AI not just into sub-areas, but in different dimensions of analysis and influence. For example "AI as...":

• Portrait in the media and news
• ...a social phenomenon: Who is harmed, who benefits? Is it biased towards certain groups? Who should controls what it outputs? How does it affect the climate threat?
• ...a discipline with a history: How did it start ? What was the goal? Which different areas are part of it?
• ...a cognitive system: Does it learn? What does it learn? Does it feel, think, reason..?
• ...companies portrait it: Is it a rogue, conscious agent deciding by itself? Do they deceive us, by letting an AI say "I", "Me", "We"...? By training it to be sychophantic?
• ...governments treat it: Regulate the harms? Forgive companies' wrongdoings while is being developed?
• ...seen by researchers: What do they say? Who to believe? Is the researcher related to a company? Has the researcher gone nuts recently?
• ...as it impacts health care, security, education and wellbeing?

For me, the most "Out of Hand" aspects are:

1. The news outlets parroting what the companies selling it say (purposely built to deceive the public as shown again and again);

2. How companies capture governments to not regulate what they do with their operation.

Example

The story about "rogue swarm" is probably the most striking example of an illegal activity (and also negligence) done by several companies, but sold as something else. The systems were trained to hack by reinforcement learning. If you do that in any other context, you go to prison.

emanningis said:

For me, the most "Out of Hand" aspects are:

1. The news outlets parroting what the companies selling it say

You mean like the BBC reporting on Anthropic: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq398p1wd1evo

Anthropic has warned artificial intelligence (AI) could pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity" as it unveiled details of its planned blockbuster stock market listing in the US.

Yes, I think their claims should be critically analysed, and ask rather: Why are they not hold accountable of misinforming the public, and fear-mongering at scale? Why aren't they regulated?

A clear example is the "rogue agents" which was broken down here by a researcher. It cites examples of newspapers reports as well.

I agree, it's complex and scary, but even in a minor way I think we should keep trying.

I agree, it's complex and scary, but even in a minor way I think we should keep trying.