AI is going to hack us.

[Corinnguard]

When confronted with the unknown, fear is the rational response.

I have two bottles. One is poison, one is not. Unless I can perform an experiment to determine which is which, the only rational scientific response is to drink neither of them.

There is nothing rational about fear. It's about subconsciously going into a flight, freeze or fawn response over a real or perceived threat. On top of that, humans are really bad at assessing risk.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is nothing rational about fear. It's about subconsciously going into a flight, freeze or fawn response over a real or perceived threat.

It is so rational that it has evolved to be hardwired into the human brain, because if you take the time to think about if a lion is dangerous or not it will be to late to do anything.

On top of that, humans are really bad at assessing risk.

True, which is why you need to do the science first.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is so rational that it has evolved to be hardwired into the human brain, because if you take the time to think about if a lion is dangerous or not it will be to late to do anything.

True. The Flight, Freeze or Fawn response has been hardwired into the brain, but it's a subconscious thing. You see a lion and your body reacts before your mind does.

True, which is why you need to do the science first.

Sadly, not many people take this route when they are about to take a risk. They're gambling, consciously or subconsciously, that what they are about to do pays off.

 

[trappedslider]

well, we've gotten a bit off the topic

With that said I'll just point out that gambling addiction is in the DSM 5 TR and ICD-11 and social media/internet addiction will more than likely be in the DSM-6.

EDIT: And before i get a wall of text, yes i'm aware of the appeal to authority.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

When confronted with the unknown, fear is the rational response. Then you investigate it until it is no longer unknown. Which is were the science comes in.

I have two bottles. One is poison, one is not. Unless I can perform an experiment to determine which is which, the only rational scientific response is to drink neither of them.

You have completely failed to understand the point I was trying to make. I appreciate your attempt at a rational response though. But maybe go back and reread and try again.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You have completely failed to understand the point I was trying to make. I appreciate your attempt at a rational response though. But maybe go back and reread and try again.

You seem to be trying to argue that testing new things as potentially dangerous is irrational, and we should charge ahead and do them anyway, at least until the there is irrefutable evidence of danger.

This is itself an irrational position, since by the time there is evidence the harm has been done. That’s before you take into account vested interests trying to prevent the research being done at all.

I have worked in a science lab, where proper procedure is to treat any unknown as potentially dangerous and handle with care. This is based on reason, not emotion. The fact that human brains are also programmed to behave that way (although are less good at correctly identifying threats) is a survival trait. It may be emotional, but it is not irrational.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's called people don't care, the jobs are just temporary until they get something else, or like the manager has an in with a probation officer or something.

it's called if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I have worked in a science lab, where proper procedure is to treat any unknown as potentially dangerous and handle with care.

I'm not trying to argue with this, just stating a related bit of trivia, but at least three artificial sweeteners were discovered by people not following this procedure.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You seem to be trying to argue that testing new things as potentially dangerous is irrational, and we should charge ahead and do them anyway, at least until the there is irrefutable evidence of danger.

Not at all what I was saying.

What I actually am saying is that the definition of potentially dangerous must be reasonable. If I say: "I have never walked down this street before; how do I know it isn't infested with saltwater crocodiles? I'd better conduct some experiments just to be sure!", is that reasonable? Of course not. That's an extreme example of course, but that's the territory we're venturing into here.

I have worked in a science lab, where proper procedure is to treat any unknown as potentially dangerous and handle with care. This is based on reason, not emotion. The fact that human brains are also programmed to behave that way (although are less good at correctly identifying threats) is a survival trait. It may be emotional, but it is not irrational.

Not my career today, but my university background is chemical engineering (computer science had better job prospects...).

 

[darjr]

The Arcane Library, makers of Shadowdark, posted recently about having to turn off AI chat bots posting in their group. A feature neither desired nor asked for.

May want to check any groups you run, Facebook or not.