However, it's a bit of a non-statement - Isn't it true for all technology ever? Therefore it seems like a retreating point spouted while moving from the now untenable position of "AI will revolutionize everything". But that's just my impression
> grief
> denial
Yeah, and he's in the denial phase
Blaming the user for not understanding the magnificent technology is the latest fad. The cranky Google AI also accuses you of being "frustrated" and "anxious" if you do not like its output.
Investors are beginning to notice.
Anyway, denial or not, his vision of the likely future is one in which individual humans become irrelevant slaves to either AI or massive corporations. Why would any self-respecting human accept that outcome?
There is a difference between “accept” as in ‘this is what I would want’ and what actually happens.
There are lots of reasons why things don’t go the way individuals want them to. Predicting the future is hard. Practically speaking, people have constrained agency. Getting organized to make significant change can be hard (i.e. collective action problems) even when everybody knows things are messed up.
What happened to the web when the dotcom bubble popped?
It won't replace all people, just the people that don't/didn't embrace it. I'm tremendously faster than my peers who don't.
AI is for the smartest of us, myself included, who are not afraid of it, and not delusional about what it is.
It is the greatest tool/mirror we have ever made. If you actually use AI enough - you'll start to understand what recursive means.
Yeah, everyone else is a ghost driver.
I do wonder, what is more plausible: Society collectively being in denial about X or a bunch of investors + their attachments being in denial about X where X is their investment?
Macha•2mo ago
> Dr. Louis B. Rosenberg is a computer scientist and current CEO of Unanimous AI, a California company focused on amplifying human intelligence using AI algorithms modeled on biological swarms.