this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
210 points (81.1% liked)

Technology

88163 readers
2720 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
210
AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
243 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

so sad to keep seeing this criticism. These are tools that work towards goals. Can be war target selections based on "cruely is the point" philosophy, where there are no wrong answers from the point of view of the human agent asking the compute agent. A government spending $Ts to maximize their power/survival omelette is going to break a few human rights principles, and the models they will access will have no guardrails. A bond villain selecting people opposed to skynet/bond villains for "targets to neutralize" can use models that are months ahead of public releases, without any guardrails, on how to most discretely neutralize them. Anthropic has Swatted anti-AI activists without providing evidence of anything they said as wrong.

Your argument is "their shit is weak and buggy, so nothing can ever go wrong". Tools to help produce evil shit, buggy or not, are going to be used to produce evil shit.