2026-10-18 00:58 UTC
@bakuninboys@aus.social
My comment comes from this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/13/geoffrey-hinton-trump-ai-tech
But, basically, there's this weird idea that either you think AI is awesome and it's going save us all or it's inherently dangerous and it's going to kill us all. These are both pro-AI viewpoints that assume that AI is somehow an exceptional technology that should be treated differently because it's sentient or near-sentient.
The truth is it's just tech that allows a bunch of things to be automated that were not really possible before. So like all tech. Hinton and others' views preclude this more material viewpoint, or deride it as "skepticism" (which, of course, it only is if you consider the doomer vs booster argument as the only valid position).
Replies (1)
-
@bakuninboys@aus.social 2026-10-18 01:20
@flipper@mastodonapp.uk right, but I see that as somewhat benign. To some extent, ignoring pro or anti AI framings, ai safety research still has instrumental value. The data / math folk in the thread would probably consider it table stakes, and there are more interesting broader questions to contend with. I think the specific beef here is that Hinton has downplayed or dismissed Gebru, Whittaker, and others because he's a dick.