[tvanantwerp]

That's the real danger of AI: not that is wants to kill us all, but that it kills us all simply by accident.

[dqpb]

My prediction is that one day someone will say "Entertain me more than anyone has been entertained before". And they will end up dead.

[taberiand]

Couldn't be much worse than the mess we're making by ourselves.

[maltalex]

No no no no.

These self-deprecating arguments can only come from people who lack the basic understanding of how good we have it especially in the western world and how fragile our societies really are. Seriously, just look at Ukraine or Syria.

It can very much be worse by orders of magnitude. Just imagine this benevolent AI screwing up the electric grid or food production. Not to mention getting access to weapons, especially nuclear.

The water you drink, the food you eat, the energy that keeps you warm and mobile was made available to you by other people and by complex systems you (probably) don’t full understand. It can all be easily be taken from you. And most people (incl. myself) will have a very hard time surviving. So, no, it can definitely get a lot worse.

[SamPatt]

World population has never been higher.

From a species' perspective, you are fantastically wrong.

[lemming]

To be honest, that's the real danger of humans too. We now have numerous possible ways that we might just wipe ourselves out by mistake (climate change passing some feedback loop tipping point, forever chemicals making all mammals sterile, nukes, CFCs were a pretty good candidate back in the day too).

[jazzyjackson]

I wouldn't blame the AI in this case, I would blame whoever put an AI in charge of critical systems.

[gaterin]

Issue: Eradication of humanity.

Cause: PEBKAC

Solution: Eradication of humanity.

[thebradbain]

I've always thought that "user error" would be what ultimately ends the world as we know it...

[antonvs]

I mean, San Francisco wants to give its police killer robots. There's no shortage of the "whoever" in positions of influence.