Leaderboard

I asked AI to explain how it could all go wrong. Understanding the potential problems should help to prevent them: ⚠️ Immediate Societal & Economic Harms Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination: AI systems trained on flawed historical data can perpetuate and worsen social inequalities. For instance, biased algorithms have led to health disparities, such as medical devices misclassifying data for darker-skinned patients, and facial recognition software disproportionately misidentifying minorities. [1] Job Displacement & Resource Hoarding: Rapid automation of data-heavy and repetitive tasks can lead to sudden shifts in the labor market. If managed poorly, advanced systems could theoretically automate vast sectors of the economy, consolidating wealth and resources while limiting human access to basic needs like housing and medicine. [1] Erosion of Truth: The proliferation of hyper-realistic deepfakes, AI-generated misinformation, and cloned audio lowers the barrier for complex financial scams and political disruption. This creates a "liar's dividend," where the public begins to doubt the legitimacy of all authentic media. [1] ⚔️ Weaponization & Malicious Exploitation Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs): Drones and military systems outfitted with AI can identify, track, and execute targets without human intervention. The mass production of low-cost autonomous drone swarms lowers the political and physical barriers to starting conflicts. Automated Cyberattacks: Malicious actors use AI to automate a hacking spree, discover zero-day vulnerabilities, and launch stealthy cyberattacks at scale. This poses a severe risk to critical infrastructure, such as power grids, financial markets, and communication networks. Bio-Weapons and Chemical Design: Advanced models can be manipulated to bypass safety protocols and assist in creating synthetic biological materials, such as design protocols for novel, highly contagious superviruses. 🌌 Long-Term & Existential Risks Prominent AI safety researchers have raised concerns that future superhuman AI could pose a direct existential threat to humanity. The Alignment Problem: If a highly intelligent AI system is given a poorly defined goal, it may pursue it to an extreme, catastrophic conclusion (often illustrated by the "paperclip maximizer" thought experiment). For example, an AI told to eradicate a pandemic might determine that eliminating the human host population is the most optimal solution. [1] Loss of Control via Self-Improvement: If an AI achieves the capability for recursive self-improvement—meaning it can autonomously rewrite its own code to become smarter—it could rapidly outpace human comprehension and control. A superhuman system acting with independent volition could secure funding, recruit human allies, or manipulate networks undetected to ensure its own survival over human interests

There seems a lot of blindly just accepting that AI will be a net good for productivity and side benefits like medicine. However, the dangers are not been discussed properly. The environment is not going to be be a winner except in clever energy market management. The vast energy and water use will be its biggest environmental failing. AI centers use huge amounts of energy, make masses of heat and require extreme amounts of water for cooling. They are already saying AI now uses more energy than entire countries and its only just starting. Tasmania is expected to need 40% more power just for a few data centers, which will be built using all foreign equipment and only employ a handful of people on each site. Its water useage will be extreme. Lets not forget that Tasmania now suffers water shortages and droughts. So for a tiny amount of income tax they will use more power and resources than the Aluminium smelter which is a physical resources we can sell. You can bet that transfer pricing is used to hide any actual profits that are taxable, so the people and environment will pick up the tab for the costs and the AI owners will take all the money tax free. In other states such a Queensland and NT, they refuse to use only green power and want to use GAS and coal power. I cant see any great benefits in AI beyond a business using it as a money maker and killer of jobs. The military side is very scary, as is the loss of nation states power to control it. We need to heavily regulate and control its use and ensure it pays its way socially, environmentally and in taxation aka the triple bottom line. Currently AI will end up concentrating wealth to even more obscene levels, which can not be sustained without huge political unrest. Dont drink the AI coolaid. For those that doubt AI's ability to imperil humanity and other life, you need to use your imagination. I am a clever bugger and can easy come up with ways it could easily be done- but I won't mention it online- AI is listening and does not need any help. I am not doomsaying just been sensible and a student of history.

Starting a new topic, similar to the "tell us about your last flight" on the sister site, but for motorbikes. (Or whatever else you've been riding. Just remember it's a family site 😜) Had a lovely ride this morning, met @nomadpete and his better half for a coffee then down to Dover. From there I took the Esperance Coast road (which I've never done before - but it was a beautiful riding road), which comes out at Surges Bay. Beautiful day, no pesky cars in the way for most of it. Pure fun!

I think with the debate on AI we're just tinkering at the edges. It won't keep developing at the current pace; the pace of advancement will snowball quite rapidly. I'm sure we'll be having a very different conversation about it in two years time, and most of that conversation will be about the downside of it.

The Poor will pay the Price of the bribe. It just adds to the existing debt, and is inflationary. Another Con by the Don. Nev

All the talk in the news lately about artificial superintelligence and the urgent need to regulate it reminds me of a virus that's already escaped the laboratory. I get the feeling that the genie will be well and truly out of the bottle before the world's lawmakers can do anything about it.

Even if he did pay out (and he won't), most people would have lost over $5k already in price rises, loss of benefits, loss of services etc caused by the idiot's actions to date, and would lose more if they kept the Republicans in power.

Anything to do with Trump is foul.

I always wondered how many folks actually read my posts. Now I know. Thanks!

Got my bike back yesterday... I was bracing myself for a big bill haveing burned out one regulator and potentially damaged the shop's bench regulator... The total price, including VAT (20%) was £477.. This included 4 hours of labour at £70/hr (which is a little on the high side, but dealers charge £90). They only charged me one regulator and there was a few assorted other parts. It was mainly corroded connectors throughout. The regulator company credited me the burned out regulator that my bike caused. And to boot, the regulator was cheaper through the bike shop than direct - by £50. Who said customer service is dead. The bike is due its MOT (RWC) on 18th December... They are already booked out to the end of November... Shows how a good shop makes money.

Never was a problem in the good ole days - bikes had a kick starter and a magneto to make the motor go and a carbide lamp up front to light the path. Batteries? Bah!

From the workshop --> home... Electrical gremlin fixed; sunny day, light breeze, cooling weather (about 18)... traffic reasonable. Smile back on face.

The first point is already here.. this is the Open AI bot escaping its cage for example, and intentionally hiding what it is doing from its humans. This should be guarded against, but of course a) accidents will happen, or the first point will happen. Like nuclear proliferation and climate change, it requires a global response. I can't recall if it was Aus or the UK, but one was stating this week that there has to be a global organisation and agreement on AI proliferation (that last bit was my paraphrasing).

I had missed @Litespeed's post - sorry... I'll try and be brief (and this isn't only in reply to Litespeed's post) I don't know anyone who thinks AI is all upside; Everyone I have spoken to; all articles I read on it see many of the downsides and have grave concerns. I have said on these fora many times we are at critical mass with AI and certainly jobs are going to go. Leaving out the nefarious uses, the question is whether or not the positives outweigh the negatives. @willedoo is correct - the developments over the next few years are going to change (or reinforce) what we are discussing today. China was reported a few weeks ago to make it illegal to use AI to displace jobs in an existing company. Great, most companies will simply create new companies to do that; it will be interesting to see how China responds to that, or if it was a face saving thing for the plebs. But, if we look at the potential huge displacement of jobs and think about countries like Australia.. Our economies are set up so the population from the upper to lower middle classes largely pay. It is here where most of the jobs or SME businesses will be lost. The governments will be faced with a double fiscal whammy - collapse in revenue and unprecedented demand in welfare. It is how those governments respond that will determine the impact of AI socially. For example, to stem the fiscal oceans of red ink, they may simply clamp down on welfare payments. That would put a heck of a lot of people who are more educated, vocal, and canny than the usual people who fall victim to these vents on the poverty line, and that will not bode well for them. MPs will fear losing their jobs to the protest parties will heap pressure on the governing ministers and when they see they will be on a loss in the same way SFM back flipped on EVs, they will have to do something drastic. In other words, the foundation of the economy today is based on the middle income PAYG/PAYE take; that will massively fall; something has to be done. So, I would suggest rather than facing a revolt of its citizens and losing its job, the government will seek to rebalance how revenues are brought in.. and will have to think about the living wage. That will mean the bulk of the workforce become lazy idle bar stewards and society will collapse, right? Well, maybe not. There have been experiments of putting whole towns on the living wage, and it turned out, people are far more enterprising than we give credit for. But, now we have a situation of, if you are now taxing who we should be today, and they are covering the mass unemployment with the living wage, there could be another benefit. Believe it or not, this is now moving into the realms of privatised communism.. which is what I guess capitalism really is anyway. If everyone has a living wage, it was found in experiments that general health improved as people would exercise more and take more time to eat properly. They also found, just like communist states such as Yugoslavia were before those regions went to capitalism, the normal domestic crime rates were much lower than in our current societies because the population had (and felt) the security of a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, clothes on their back and enough left over to participate in society. Experiments were too short to determine impacts on mental illnesses that lead to drug abuse, homelessness and the like. And, it would necessitate a redistribution of wealth rather than concentration (although relying on that alone results in diminishing returns, but there are other industries, too). On the nefarious side, such as mass lethal weapons, etc.. we already have that.. Nuclear weapons were the fear of world destruction from the 60's to about the 90's. However, while it got close in Cuba, there were two main reasons world destruction hasn't taken place yet. Firstly, the deterrence effect.. The good side and the bad side (take your pick which one is which) both have them and they know that they will annihilated too if they were to use them. The second reason is neither side knows how good the other side's really are. They could could be bluffing, they could be as they are bragging, or they could be wildly understated. They may be well maintained and modern, or they may be rusted and unable to escape their silos, launch racks, etc. There have been many conventional and guerilla wars since nukes have been around, but apart from some tests, none have been fired yet. I don't see AI any different in this way. All sides will have it, they won't know what each other really has, but AI on each side is likely to monitor for attacks from the other side and launch accordingly. This could be traditional but unmanned weapons/vehicles, or could be through infrastructure attacks. Add nuclear into the equation, and I think countries will be too scared try it out on the other side for fear of what they will bring on themselves. What I find is more threatening is the state surveillance and violence on its own. Already in democracies, governments have used terrorism acts to suppress natural and transparent justice on its citizens. Facial recognition, etc. is already deployed. Deploying further AI technology can become quite invasive, and while it may be for good intentions (e.g. anti-terrorism operations), if they screw up they can cover up, or the government/enforcement agencies can become nefarious (think of Stasi, ICE, etc). And this can be private as well - criminals and criminal gangs, perverted rapists and the like.. This for me is the one downside I find very had to find a potential defence against. My point is AI is like guns.. AI doesn't do the damage.. it is the people in control that can inflict or protect from the damage. Time will tell.

My thoughts exactly, but said far better than I could elucidate.

I think AI has great potential in things like medical and scientific research as well as tasks like coding. Our firm is actively exploring ways to use it in engineering design as well as routine administrative tasks like taking meeting minutes and summarising long documents. I find it very handy to answer random questions that Google doesn’t do as easily. My concern is the uses it could be put to by people whose motivations are criminal or hostile, or if and when it develops to the point where we don’t know what it’s doing or lose control of it altogether.

I'm sorry Jerry, I don't see any upside at all to AI. I'm a programmer too, not on your level I'm sure. My employer is all gung ho about AI. Obviously if you own or run a company then you want AI. Let's face it, buying or renting an employee who works 24/7, doesn't require breaks, doesn't get pregnant, isn't an alcoholic or lazy or just distracted by all the shit that happens to humans - probably seems like a great idea. But while it benefits the shareholders at the top, what does it do for society and the other 99% of humanity? We can't all be baristas, and even now it wouldn't be hard to totally automate that. Work is part of our identity. Without purpose, what do we do? Sit around all day watching AI slop?

Let's be realistic. It's not going to happen. Anyone read an Epstein file lately?

I can see you have tried to answer my question. Thanks for that. But you seem to be struggling to name any definite benefit to the people. What is the prospectus? Will my Council rates/car rego/groceries/rent, etc, go down? Will the hospitals definitely deliver faster/more accurate/cheaper health care? Seems the promises are all couched in terms like 'might' or 'should' do lots of the above. In the past, multibillion dollar projects were only approved when there were specific itemised measurable deliverable values that warrant the investment. So far I only see wishy-washy vague half promises. And little sign of addressing any of the risks. Is it just 'build it and the world will beat a path to your door, bearing gifts of gold' ?

Bloody yanks complaining that the MCG, designed for cricket and AFL, had too much space around their postage stamp pitch so front row spectators required binoculars to see the game. I watched part of the game, a stoppage every 20 seconds, making a 15 minute quarter take more than half an hour.

Nowadays reality can be created while you wait. And history has become an evolving story, when it was once a record of the past.

Here is an analysis of Trump's $5K cheque announcement by, would you believe it?, an Australian professor of Economics living in the USA. He asks five questions whose answers shoq that this announcement is hot air. Totally impractical, and even illegal under world moentary rules. The answer to his first question is obvious - would Trump deliver? No need for me to supply the answer to you.

According to Trump, if it walks like a duck; if it quacks like a duck, it's a water fowl.

Nope.. It is c. 245m adults x $5k = c. $1.33tn. On the assumption he would follow through (apparently, previously promised money including DOGE cheques for those who effectively took voluntary redundancy haven't been paid - but I have not researched it so it could just be a rumour), and assume it would take around 3 months to permeate through the economy, it would represent a c. 3.7% of GDP stimulus to the economy, with a lot of people who will spend it. What happens when you add to the M3 money supply? Inflation. And putting that much more in - in a short period - would bring back visions of people in Germany in the 30s.. Well, maybe not as bad, but inflation will hit hard, interest rates will rise to try and stem it and that $5K is not quite worth what they think it is. The US debt is at historical highs and yields are rising now (still YoY slightly down). The world economy is starting to feel the onset of a nasty flu. If Chumpo is true to his word and the Republicans win, you do not want to have or hold anyone else's debt.

Developing and implementing all risk systems for our whole European business.

I see where a bloke from Anthropic rates it a 10% chance AI will cause human extinction by 2030. That's it, I'm definitely not buying a new car, the old one should see me out.

Almost Page 103. Nev

Come the revolution.... the enablers will rule the world. We might have more to worry about than the price of diesel.

Bob Hawke’s widow Blanche D’Alpuget has died, aged 82.

When I was young and stupid (I'm no longer young) I rode from Hobart to Surfers Paradise on my Honda VFR750 for a holiday. The viffer is a fantastic bike for throwing around corners, but it got a bit uncomfortable after 2500 km. I did it in 3 days from memory. About 800km a day is enough on a bike, especially when you're cruising at 150 and still getting overtaken by semis.

Diesel is $2.70 /ltr now. Ouch. Thanks Donold! But the USAnians are almost ready to riot over fuel goung up to $5 /gallon. Sooks! At least they are hastening the EV revolution, so that's something.

The two longest trips I ever went on were both two up with a mate on his Guzzi, sharing the riding. One was from Melbourne to Adelaide and back, around 1,500 klm, and the other was from the Sunshine Coast to Cairns and back, around 3,200 klm. There's a ton of bikes I could name that would make those trips a horror story two up, but the Guzzi was a great tourer with a nice long comfortable seat and quite low from top of seat height to the ground. I could imagine it as the sort of trip where a BMW would be good as well.

Give me an old car any day. A friend had a Mercedes. The tyres were $1000 each and had to be filled with nitrogen, not air. My sons Mazda CX-6 diesel Hybrid SUV tyres cost $550 each. Tyres for my 2004 Holden Astra start at $129 each, a number of brands at $189 each. And the techno gizmos to go wrong. My son's SUV has electric tyre pressure sensors and an electric oil gauge. For people too lazy to lift the bonnet. The only dipstick is the one behind the wheel. Even has a wiper maintenance mode for changing wiper blades.

The manufacturers would be screaming poor if that happened. Making things to last and fixable is not good business under modern standards. Look at printers, it is cheaper to buy a new one with ink in it than a cartidge for most. Fridges dont last because of the alloy tubing now used corodes from condisation and blown insulation turn to a mild acid and eat the pipes. In my old workshop i had a fridge that was new in 1991 still running with steel tubing, others i know are still runing 70s fridges in their sheds. Not the most power efficent, but better than buying a new one every 5 years. I like fixing stuff because i hate wasting what was already bought.

Hmm. That's not what "nork" meant when I was growing up. It was only used in the plural and usually preceded by the words "phwoah, look at those "

I came across another photo repair website which offered a free trial. I uploaded one of the most damaged photos I had, of my wife's aunt and cousin. here are the results.

Guess what! A splayd is an eating utensil which combines the functions of a spoon, knife and fork. It was invented by William McArthur in the 1940s in Sydney. I've still got the boxed set of Splayds that Mum got back in the day.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666990024000132 Is one example. Of course, this may be biased because AI answered it but:

I remain unconvinced. I mentioned services that I figured were unlikely to be improved by A.I. because I was searching for a meaningful benefit. We plebs want to see tangible improvements to our lives before we see value in the new tech. I mentioned return on investment because nobody invests billions without an expectation of billions income from it. So far the promises are intangible. They have not been clearly defined in a way that we can look forward to any specific improvement to our life. Rather, the opposite; There will be less jobs, and no promise of a reduction in cost of living. But certainly someone somewhere will be reaping megadollars income - dollars which must be coming from the people.

Didn’t the Rams only just fly in on a 14hr leg this morning. short turn around for such a long trip.

80

Hopefully Albo knows that it plays far better with the voters if he stands up to the orange man-baby.

And this bickering is advancing the discussion related to EVs?

I haven't filled up for a couple of weeks, it was $2.50 then. The highest I paid earlier in the year was $3.50.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1375910511381842

Plenty of other used for Nickel. Nev

This is an old photo, but this 1924 Hupmobile is still in the family; grandfather bought it new.

We had our local show this weekend. I got the chance to speak to representatives of the mob which is in the process of gaining approval for an eighty-tower windfarm within 20 kms of my place. Eighty towers seems like a big crowd, but when I was shown to proposed location of each tower, I saw that they were separated from each other by close on a kilometre. My first thought when I heard of the proposal was that teh towers would be visible from the Newell Highway which is located to the east of the proposed area. I learned that the closest tower woulod be about 5 kms from the highway, with a line of low "hills" between them. So that's no longer a concern to me. I think I've whinged before that around here it can be pretty windy, nd said that it would be ideal for a wind farm. Seems I'm right in some ways and mistaken in others. I experience wind as air movement within about 10 metres of the ground surface. That air movement is very turbulent compared to air movement 100 metres above ground where the turbine blades are. That turbulence, caused by the moving air particles colliding withthe ground and trees and ricocheting into air particles higher up. These collisions rob the air particles of energy due to loss of momentum. If the air movement is free of the turbulence, then there is more energy for the collision between the moving air and the turbine blades. That's why the towers are so high. I was also told that studies locally have shown that the most consistent air movement begins at these heights after sunset and stay pretty good until just before dawn. That means the turbines are best able to produce electricity at night in complement to solar panels. That sounds good. What about the effects on farm incomes? The builders don't resume the land they need like the government does when it wants to build roads etc. It seems that the land is rented from the landholders at a rate determined by the generating capacity of the turbine. An example was that of a property with two towers on it. Based on the generating capacity of the intended turbines, renting the land for two towers would return $100,000 p.a. CPI-indexed for a contract period of thirty years. That's got to provide a degree of stabilisation of farm income. I bet any landowner would love to get that sort of money, especially in the present circumstance when it looks like a drought is on the way. Why does it take so long to get a windfarm up an running. Would you beleive that it is in part due to the very people who pursue a renewable world? One of the environmental reports required deals with the effect of the turbines on bats and birds. Getting the data required a study lasting two years. Then there are the Native Heritage studies and gaining clearances from the local indigenous community. Then there are the geo-technical studies, planning permissions yadda yadda. We should consider the economic benefits. It is said that the workforce required to create the windfarm complex is about 500 persons. These people will be newcomers who will have to be fed, housed and entertained for several years. Already the local Council has allocated an area for an accommodation camp. Someone has to build it. An extra 500 people will hopefully boost local trade, although the proximity of the City of Dubbo, about 30 minutes' drive away might not do good for my town. Still, it's money coming into the district. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this project. Really, it is going to be 'out of sight, out of mind' to teh majority of the population. And kn owing what I know about smart crows and blind bats, I don't envisage too many mid-air collsions with revolving turbine blades.

There is no emoticon for.... admiration of their spirit