But, let me guess, the billionaires don’t want them to.
AI doesn’t even exist yet. We can’t even stop a catastrophe we haven’t created yet.
Here’s the issue I have with your position… AI is such a generic term it’s difficult to have a fulfilling conversation using it but in my field a form of AI like machine learning is going to eliminate an entire sector of manufacturing… Boutique precision machined components have been thought as an impenetrable wall against AI but it’s basically the same lackluster defense used not long ago about Generative images couldn’t produce hands properly… It’s not a matter of if but when.
Imo, the catastrophe happens when a successful AI scales. Or perhaps rather how suddenly a successful AI model will bury the existing system into irrelevancy. Boeing and most aerospace manufacturers have a machinist union but none of that will protect against a future where people are no longer necessary.
I don’t think it’s wrong to have AI eliminate jobs but it shouldn’t come without warning. I think it’s rather forward looking to be monitoring ongoing AI projects and establish contingencies for folks who will become displaced by it’s rapid spread.
So none at all…
So… a convention every 4 years?
Ineffective policies for the poor’s that has a negligible effect while giant corporations make billions and exacerbate the problem?
Sounds same as always. Maybe they’ll do it now with a sense of urgency?
I heard they’re drafting a resolution to sheepishly ask the US ‘why the big cars?’
“We should do something about this” - COPXX
I’d like to ignore it until it goes away too, but I don’t think that’s an effective strategy for either issue.
IE regulatory capture and soothing bullshit?
Problem resolved itself… ChatGPT is down.
Sooo high urgency with zero consequence for missing targets?
So do nothing until it’s too late? got it…
confused. so nothing will happen, a lot of talk and EU makes a law thats only applied locally if memberstates agree?!?
So just chill?
« creating an AI fund to back projects in these [poorer] nations, establishing AI standards and data-sharing systems, and creating resources such as training to help nations with AI governance. »
So basically burn money and energy on some hallucinating algorithm should be as important as investing in green energy and reducing CO2 levels. That makes sense. Like, yeah, totally onboard. What could go wrong?
those ai projects will be countering the climate change projects! government at its usual
So ignore it until it kills us?
Haha yeah, I know right cries
I… does the UN think they’re handling climate change well and promptly?
i mean the global un is pretty good on it; it’s just that the larger world powers (especially the us every time they have a conservative who goes backward on it) tend to drag their feet on it
I mean I don’t think it’s the UN’s fault they can’t get shit done about climate change, but I still wouldn’t use it as a model
Also China doesn’t want to fix their shit. So they’ll always be a problem.
“AI” is a scam that’s contributing to planetary destruction. But it’s nowhere near a problem on the same scale. This kind of political theater only fuels the “AI” BS.
