@@SelinaCatI don't think they meant that Stephen doesn't hype him. There's clearly a chemistry between the two. But rather that other guests are there to recieve hype more than give.
I hear that. I used to watch the late show with my dad as a kid. Now that I'm older, I watch it on the way to work every morning from RU-vid. I have missed Steven and have wanted to hear his opinion on stuff in the news lately. Glad he is back! 😅
How did I miss Strike Force Five?! I heard Dr. Tyson live about 10 years ago. He spoke for almost 2.5 hours straight had us laughing the whole time. One of my most memorable nights ever in my life. I learned so much about science, new stuff I never heard of, that night from him.
It's the Letterman tradition. Remember how Paul Shaffer's job on the show included being David's sidekick as well as his bandleader? Jon and now Louis do the same thing for Stephen.
I'm glad Neil himself brought up his slight discomfort with his own work being fed to AI, and that Stephen pushed on that point a little further with his joke. Although AI no doubt brings great benefits, it also comes with issues that shouldn't be glossed over as if there's little or nothing to worry about.
Yes, NDT was way too flippant about the subject - also throwing everything from a smartly programmed algorithm (Traffic prediction) in the mix with LLM and neural nets… simplifying to the point of useless
Wait till AI is used by insurance companies to decide if you get a surgery you need to live-the actuary algorithm determined you aren’t worth the expense
I absolutely LOVE how Stephen asked his followup questions about the impact of AI on creatives. And kudos to NDT for highlighting the need for more & better paid teachers, as well as his squirmy, unresolved conflicted feelings about AI companies profiting off of his labor!
I think an A.I. would use a phrase like, "Neil deGrasse Tyson is _underrated."_ It doesn't mean much and it's nearly always wrong, but it's one of the most common words in RU-vid comments.
From what I briefly read, Strike Force Five proceeds went to supporting their teams. That's dope. So glad the writers and their jokes are back. I need John Oliver and Stephen Colbert in my life.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is so super cool. What a novel idea, a human talking to another human about what they learned or researched for the exam in school.
When most classrooms these days are 30 or 35 students for every teacher, 30+ back-to-back 1-on-1 exams just isn't realistic. So, more likely, if someone wanted to attempt this model it would be a bunch of tiny cubicles with a screen, camera, microphone, and a desk. (hopefully soundproofed) Who gives the exam? AI, of course. The interview can be recorded for the teacher to review any particular segment again later but voice-to-text collects the answers and an algorithm grades the responses. I'm not saying if this is a good or bad thing but it's far more likely than human-to-human exams. [Even so, if you fill in the details, which aren't too hard to imagine, I think I just described a potential $100 million+ education startup. You'd sell the desk/tech hardware package to schools and then charge a subscription fee for the testing/grading/grade reporting software. The teacher gets a login to review tests & manually adjust grades; students get a log in to take tests from home, review wrong answers, & get additional material; and parents get a login to see charts, analysis, & progress reports. If an established company does it, this all just gets integrated into the existing app. (My kids' school has a commercial app for teacher communications, posting homework explanations/reminders, and occasionally photos of their classroom events and activities.) ]
@@MichaelDerryGameitect Yes well but that isn't how oral exams work. They aren't just a list of questions, they are more like discussions. One thing leads to another, they can't be prefabricated. We have large classes and few teachers in my country, we manage, it can be done.
Stephen Colbert is my hero! I’ve been struggling with anxiety and depression lately & I had an especially rough morning…then I saw Stephen was back! Changed my whole mood to watch him again! ❤
Me, too. I love Stephen & Seth Meyers. They help me laugh through the ridiculousness of our current world. I became seriously depressed these past 5 weeks of the strike. ❤
Anyone else get a feeling there's an open bar in the green room? Love it. Always a pleasure to hear Neil go off on pretty much any given science subject.
There was in the early days of The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson. In the 1960s. Didn't work out too well after Marlon Brando and Truman Capote got into the sauce! Went dry after that.
00:06 Stephen expresses gratitude for the audience and his band 01:02 We formed a podcast to help pay the staff 02:13 Neil is Stephen's most frequent and favorite guest 03:01 Artificial intelligence is changing daily life and improving productivity in various industries. 03:48 AI is everywhere and it has surpassed humans in certain tasks. 04:40 AI in education can be used to write term papers but oral exams are a better way to evaluate learning. 05:26 Summoning knowledge through keyboards is a deeper form of education 06:24 AI can help you learn faster
I've always loved Neil. He's the kind of scientist/person I've always strived to be; passionate, informative, and able to accept new perspectives to further understanding instead of blocking it out.
he doesn't know what a woman is. The space cadet misogynist bro is no longer a star... he's a misogynist thats fine with indulging the fantasy of men in womenface, at the cost of wimen and children. I too held NDT in great esteem. Until his Triggernometry interview... HE KNOWS better.... he's protecting the Bro's messaging. NDT is a stellar astrophysicist. He needs to stick to stellar bodies and stop telling women that a man's feelings and self proclamations are eminent.
@@rachellandry3116 He's become so much more Pompous and Self-Aggrandizing than he used to be... and he was already too Pompous and Self-Aggrandizing for me.
Always such a joy to see Neil deGrasse Tyson at the Late Show. I am glad this interview was posted here, since I got used to "miss" the show lately and forgot to resume. But what a marvelous way to get back with the good stuff.
Ngl, they should’ve made this episode at least 3 hours. With 10 monologues and maybe 20 guests? I don’t know. Now off to last week tonight. I expect it to be 3hrs at least. ❤❤❤
I am kinda glad to see Neil deGrasse Tyson stumped at the prospect of AI at the ethical implementation. We already use different forms of AI. The problem isn't AI, but the people who use it to undercut creatives. AI was supposed to take away the mundane jobs like doing your taxes so that YOU could do the art and express yourself. Neil deGrasse Tyson sees the future use of AI but pauses when he acknowledges that AI is theft and would undercut his book sales. Not because he's any more particularly greedy than anyone else but because he has to eat and pay rent like the rest of us and AI is scraping his labor.
I have to agree 100% on that. My grandfather was a photographer and in the last 15 years he sometimes used Photoshop to tweak some things (brightness correction and stuff). But the ideas for his pictures, the way they were shot and where they fit in an exhibition always came from him and his decades of experience. I'm glad he is not around to see how AI ruins that part of creativity that the human mind can come up with on its own, no need for a machine to create creative things because that loss of humanity in art would have saddened him a lot.
My thoughts exactly. We should be using AI to do things people already don’t want to do like filing taxes or dealing with bureaucracy, not to create deepfakes or write scripts.
The same issues came out when music became digital but I still see musicians making millions somehow. If someone wants to read NDT's book I doubt they will ask a chat bot ten thousand questions to access the information from Neil's three books. It is much more efficient to just read the books.
AI undercutting creatives is the goal not the pipe dream. That is what would truly mean we've arrived at creating a true AI not just one that spits out pre-planned directives. People have always felt that technology is theft because it comes for everything without restriction. A couple generations give or take maybe, I hope everything can be done by AI. That is when things would get interesting to me.
@@anthonyschlott916 That future sounds not so pleasant because it basically condenses humans to "either you're good at some important manual labour or you are useless and thus have no value for our society". It sounds very dystopian ... if it comes to that at all. Humanity sadly won't live in a world like The Jetsons but more like The Flintstones as AI depends on energy and we are not looking do good in that department if things go sour. Making ourselves dependent on modern technology might be our downfall if we are not careful and make sure to satisfy the high demand in energy without ruining our planet even more than we are already projected to do Plus, one question for you, this time quite philosophical: What makes humans humans if you take away creativity?
Here in Italy, the students are given oral exams REGULARLY!! On top of that, at the end of middle school and high school they are given a very difficult written exam covering what they learned the whole year. Later they are scheduled to sit alone in front of 6 professors, some from their school and some from other schools, and they are given a problem/poem/quote/photo. They are then given about 10 minutes to think about it, after which they have to relate it to all eight subjects they had that year - speaking 5 minutes for each subject.
The reason I’m worried about AI is because it will be used by corporations and governments to help them find ways to conceal, manipulate and minimise risk in getting what they want.
Fundamentally, any tool (assuming we've ruled out discussions about a singularity) will do good for a society but only to the extent that the tool is not exclusively used by people with power in a way that further entrenches their power.
my thoughts exactly. And yeah maybe some jobs are very complex and having AI helps someone work alongside it to get results faster, but when it comes to AI in the arts or other fields where a corporation can make more money by switching to this, its trouble. Artists across all mediums already struggle, and art is always about expression to those who truly love it. AI cranking out what it thinks people want to hear or see creates an even more inauthentic and oversaturated market. And then when all the artists die out because they can't make a living, AI will no longer have models to train on/steal from, and we'll all be stuck with it. AI can be useful in fields like medical research and procedural generation, as well as many other fields. It's just the sad habit of human desire for more that will cause AI in such excess that it harms more than helps.
Unfortunately this is all part of life, any tech/tool etc can be used for both good and/or evil, it's what we as a society value when we find out these tools have been used for nefarious purposes ? There is no really easy answer, it is fundementally a human convenience factor, I myself have been plenty guilty of this in my 60+ years on this Earth.
@@johnmijono. You took the "dumb" way out of this debate. Saying it's "just like any other" is also ignoring how all other techs destroyed lives because people in power wanted more power. Plus all uses of the tech will happen, and society will change entirely, even with everyone full of "good intentions", unless some uses are banned by enforced legislation (and they can and should be banned by enforced regulation).
From Colombia. It is So very nice to have you and the other tv host back. Please keep informing us about all that happen in USA with your wonderful humor
@@viceadmiralq90 a common concern amongst the incredibly small minded; no matter how much you think a computer can spontaneously understand free will it simply won't happen, when you freak out about a computer saying the world will end soon it is purely because it was given a script to say so. What else, elon said AI will learn to gang up on us? The ban people who don't like free speech genius? Idiots alone think a computer does anything but what's it's told to, i pity such trivial concerns.
honestly having a conversation with your students when teaching them things is something I'd love to see - It conjures up the old paintings of philosophers and such of Roman and Greek having their discussions of ideas and learning!
I absolutely love Strike Force Five! Listening to all of your stories and jokes and memories made me laugh the whole time. Episode 1 was a bit awkward, but by episode 3 you had a great rhythm, and I, for one, will miss it!❤❤
Thank you to Neil deGrasse Tyson! As a liberal arts teacher (middle and high school English) and as a semi-professional digital artist, I think it is incredibly shortsighted to be frightened of AI.
The fear comes from the application and unregulated nature, just like the answer to testing involves more work on the human end to make the tech good. The Haber-Bosh reaction makes ammonium, this can feed the world or blow it up depending on how it is used. If we had banned it instead of regulating how it is used we would be famine stricken around the globe. Technology is only as evil as its methods and goals. Just like it isn't evil to make ammonium to fertalize crops on its face, if the ones working the process are slaves it is still evil. The accumulation of information and the use of this tech need regulation not moratoriums.
@vanghostart it was a valid call out, the scientific community has already dealt with integration of AI it's not a totally new beast like people liked to pretend it was. There was tons of "well let's use it for science but not the arts" sentiment when science was integrating it so it's really just getting what's coming, if ypu throw someone to the wolves and instead they thrive among the wolves, when the wolves show up in town the person who knows the wolves will point out that the wolves acted more human than the humans did and advocate for integrating the wolves and humans to those that still fear them. And that's how you get dogs my guy, sure dogs can snap is pushed and a cornered wolf is a dangerous creature but yall are the ones causing the fear, you're the ones who can't get along not us or the dogs.
As an Illustrator, I've seen so much work disapear not only from me but from friends who are Translators, musicians, even Property surveyors. To most people it's not an aid, it's a replacement. Not fantasy, seeing it happen now.
6:09 I hope Neil keeps thinking about this. His excitement for innovation is bypassing his consideration for ethics, and that’s something I see from a lot of people. This particular line of questioning and his reaction shows that he’s begun to be affected by and start to consider the negative effects of how we’re pursuing advancements in AI. As an artist who is firmly and utterly being screwed by AI, seeing my craft completely devalued, my work scraped without any respect for my rights or wishes, and all the marketplaces and outlets I would normally express myself in become utterly flooded with the product of my violation… I see him feeling even a tiny fraction of how I feel and I hope he spends time pondering it.
I wish they would have an actual artist on the show to talk about this issue instead of this hack who calls himself a scientist and then goes on to spout nonsense about topics he knows nothing about. Just because he is an astrophysicist (and not even that great of one) doesn’t give him authority to talk about AI or humanities education.
he's too old and rich to understand the impact on real people lives, all artists are uterly fucked by this and the industry is pushing AI to make more money with less artists. And people thinks it's just an evolution of art, but it's mainly a step back, we're going down hill creatively because AI can't know what's good or not, but mainly also that it is not Art, it is not a tool.
Loved how Stephen got Neil off his toomuchcoffeeoverthetop high horse at the end. ☺ Of course AI is great when it's a helpful tool for science but AI can not and should not replace artists, musicians and creative writers.
Because it is being used to generate material based on the creatives’ works, which is then used without the consent or payment of those creatives. It’s like a machine in a textile factory. The machine could be used to make the worker’s labor easier, but instead it’s used to replace the workers’ skills and make the boss more money.
@@IllTractatesIll That's the story of automation and the modern world you have spent every waking moment of your life in. Every advancement ever made replaces the people who did an existing job. Any machine to "make the worker's labor easier" is removing the need of some previous human involvement. That's how the world became able to support billions of people with a high standard of living. What you're really saying, I believe, is that some jobs should be held higher than others. I personally loved a job I had at an agricultural facility that was replaced by a machine a few years ago. No one made a fuss over that.
I can’t say enough about how much I like Neil as a person. Most people hate school and they said “because my teacher/professor is so boring”. Then Neil appears and show us how entrusting and fun is it to learn and know about all this and that same people start mocking and making fun of him just because “it funny”
That wasn't balanced lol. They need to have Mo Gawdat on the program. He knows a lot more about the subject and is a brilliant guy. He's also not nearly as optimistic as these guys are.
I love NDT. But literature is one of the liberal arts. Does he not see the irony of denigrating liberal arts degrees, when the express reason he is on the show is to promote the book he wrote? 📚❤
and not only that , how do you back check the fact ai did not make a mistake in its calculations , because of sometimes gpt clearly answers wrong statements
@@attilakohbor3360 Your comment reminded me of the Pentium FDIV bug of June 1994 which could give the wrong answer in the fourth significant digit. The example on Wikipedia said to divide 4,195,835/3,145,727 =1.333820449136241002 (correct answer), but on Pentium =1.333739068902037589 (incorrect answer). The company kept it quiet for months. Once exposed at the end of October, Intel said it wasn't a big deal and would replace the chip for people who could prove they were affected. They finally agreed to full replacement on December 20. This was the first full recall of a computer chip. How many man-hours were lost in that time by professionals it did affect who got bad results (like in the development of Quake) or were trying to track down what the problem was with their computer using the Pentium? As well as those who had to come up with software patches?
I'm both a translator and conference interpreter. In translating documents, AI can really help with the workload (as long as it's a closed system because of sensitive information that might come up). As an interpreter, the usefulness of AI depends on the individual situation: - last minute handover of the speech that will be held in 5 minutes: to get some basic info, ok, put it in - medical or judicial setting: not ok, too much sensitive information and too many differences in legal systems to use without possible damage - political talks in small groups or 1:1 talks between heads of state: absolute no-go, too much at stake So yeah, when doing boring everyday things, I'll definitely use ut and see what it gives me and if it is useable and correct. But when it comes to interpreting and on occasion also translating legal documents or medical texts, I'll stick with more old-school methods (with the additional use of translation memory systems) because I can and should only trust myself when it comes to these things for the safety of my clients and their needs.
5:30 I it seems like it should be possible to create AI that gives the oral exams instead of finding more teachers. I imagine every student could eventually have a personal tutor that adapts to their individual needs by continually assessing them and customizing their lessons.
As one of those teachers, we here in NZ still have high school kids HANDWRITE their NCEA senior exams, while sitting in a big hall at desks while invigilators walk up and down the rows to ensure there are no electronic devices (kids aren't even allowed to wear watches) and no scribbled notes on forearms. It's old school, but it works.
Great suggestion by Neil, but how do we convince kids the need to study, if it is only for a test? It is not about how we test our kids in school, but rather, what we teach them in school given a world where AI can do so much.
As someone who really struggles to verbally communicate and express myself, I would fail an oral exam. I need to be able to write down my thoughts to build upon them. An observed written test would be way better. Maybe just don’t have coursework add up to the final grade?
I can’t stand him. He speaks like he is an authority on everything, always sure to tell the audience he is a “scientist”. He’s certainly an authority on astrophysics, but he doesn’t understand a damn thing about humanities, art, or AI.
"You felt a little bit like a Liberal-Art's major..." Dammnnn Colbert coming back STRONG! Classic quick wit and sharp as a tack! Gods I'm so happy he's back 😁
if you're not afraid of AI, then you're not paying attention. The fear is not that it's already helping us in our daily lives... the fear is that it becomes so far beyond human intelligence that there really is no point in humans at all
While I think there is a possibility to what you’re saying, the immediate danger of AI is its use, by other humans, to make a profit for the already super rich at the expense of everyone else. Let’s build public transportation instead of AI driven cars, pay artists instead of replacing them with mediocre AI art, and write our own term papers instead of cheating and plagiarizing with ChatGPT.
With all due respect to Neil, he seems to have missed both what kind of AI people are mad about and why. The only AI people are really railing against is generative AI, which people were fine with when it was a party trick we all just used for jokes, but got mad when industry leaders and jackasses who hate the arts said "but can we train it on the works of artists, writers, and actors to replace them so we don't have to pay humans?" And industry heads started trying to force it into contracts that their writers, artists, and actors had to accept their work being fed into in-house AIs for indefinite use on any project without compensation. Nobody's looking to limit the use of AI in astronomy, chemistry, medicine, or what have you to assist the researchers and doctors. They're just frustratingly broad in their slogans against generative AI and the discussion of it. Which are the AI specifically relevant to the current events in culture.
Oral exams are completely normal in Scandinavian countries and have been for many decades. Not because of AI. But because it's a good way of knowing if the student actually knows their stuff.
@@NuiYabukoI don't know how it is done in Scandinavia but in Italy exams are public, anyone can go in and listen. This is also so you can have witnesses in case you want to contest the results. Many people are happy to have classmates there for moral support. Italians are used to this because from primary grades on they have what are called " interrogations" (a rather intimidating word) where they have to stand up with the whole class looking and answer questions. As an American I initially thought this was horrible and felt sorry for my children who went to school here in Italy but I eventually realized it was good for them. Italians are generally much better at speaking and putting sentences together than typical Americans and much of this has to do with school experiences.
But AI must inevitably expand exponentially. The day will come when AI surpases human intelligence, then dwarfs human intelligence, then morphs into something we don't begin to understand, cannot control, and cannot cope with.
It's already smarter than us. Einstein was IQ of 160. AI is estimated at approximately that level if not higher. In a short period of time, it will be IQ of 1,000... The exponential rate it's growing is crazy.
Neil, I love you, but I gotta disagree a little....I'm not for banning AI, and I know it's already helping in a lot of ways, but as a writer and teacher, yes it IS worrying that students are using AI to avoid learning to use and write language effectively. Without being able to communicate, there's no hope for our species.
Oh I'm sure they will solve that with more tech. Remember Zukerberg is dreaming of the day we all communicate telepathically. It's just madness. We are changing ourselves as humans to the point we can't recognize what is human anymore. And beyond being able to spot patterns in masses of data, I'm not sure AI is " already helping in a lot of ways". It is definitely making inroads into creative fields, which is very sad to see.
I take some solace in the fact that, although AI can write a paper, it generally won’t be a very good one-certainly not a stylistically inventive and coherent one. However, that is always subject to change…
@@justinedwards6175 Very surface level, not a balanced conversation. They're way too optimistic about AI. They need to have Mo Gawdat on the program. He's fascinating and more balanced but also not as optimistic about AI.
Dr. Tyson, the question is not whether ChatGPT can use your books to better educate people, it's whether a bunch of large corporations can do so whilst violating copyright law, not giving authors credit, and building a business on stolen material. It's hardly "fair use" to break copyright so flagrantly. Part of the massive PR that's been going on to make AI sound both dangerous and therefore important is to avoid the bigger questions about how their business model could possibly survive if they actually followed the law. And their response: everyone should need to "opt-out" (we need to do the work of granting permission) rather than "opt-in" (they need to do the work of obtaining permission).
You shouldn't "worry" about AI because there's nothing you can do about it. But it's definitely a potential existential risk, and it's definitely about to completely rewrite the status quo.
I'm surprised he didn't distinguish between an Artificial Intelligence(which doesn't exist yet) from the machine learning expert systems that we colloquially label as A.I.
Whether or not Neil deGrasse Tyson is right to say that we shouldn't worry about artificial intelligence is a complex question with no easy answer. On the one hand, AI is already all around us, and we use it in many different ways without thinking about it. For example, AI is used in our phones to recommend apps and music, in our cars to help us navigate, and in our homes to control our smart devices. On the other hand, there are some potential dangers associated with AI. For example, some experts worry that AI could become so powerful that it could surpass human intelligence and become a threat to humanity. Others worry that AI could be used to create autonomous weapons that could kill without human intervention. It is important to note that these are just potential dangers, and there is no guarantee that they will come to pass. However, it is important to be aware of these potential dangers and to take steps to mitigate them. Overall, I think it is important to have a balanced and informed discussion about the potential benefits and risks of AI. We need to be aware of the potential dangers, but we also need to be open to the possibility that AI can be used to solve some of the world's biggest problems. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide how we use AI. We need to be responsible and ethical in our development and use of AI. We need to ensure that AI is used for good, not for evil. Here are some things we can do to be more responsible and ethical in our development and use of AI: We need to develop clear ethical guidelines for the development and use of AI. We need to ensure that AI is used in a way that benefits all of humanity, not just a select few. We need to be transparent about the development and use of AI, and we need to give people a voice in how AI is used. We need to educate the public about AI and its potential impact on society. By taking these steps, we can help to ensure that AI is used for good, not for evil.
"AI is used in our phones to recommend apps and music... " Literally none of those have anything that resembles AI, but I get your point. "For example, some experts worry that AI could become so powerful that it could surpass human intelligence " Current AI is not intelligent *at all*, there is nothing that even resemlbes intelligence in there. Simple example: chatGPT looks like it's giving you intelligent answers and if you ask it how to make a particular gas it will tell you not to do that because it's dangerous. But it if you ask hit how to _avoid_ making that gas, it will tell you not to mix X Y and Z. "and become a threat to humanity" But *WHY* would it do that? Why would something *very intelligent* decide that the best thing to do to kill the humans that it depends on for it's survival? "Others worry that AI could be used to create autonomous weapons that could kill without human intervention" We already have that ability, but guess what: nobody is stupid enough to let it run free without human intervention because if a fly does a sh*t on a sensor it might decide that *you* are the bad guy. A good example of this is CIWS, a 20mm gatling cannon that can be set to auto mode where it will track any target within X yards and keep firing until it's radar cannot see the target anymore. Zero AI needed. "but we also need to be open to the possibility that AI can be used to solve some of the world's biggest problems." We first have to educate the people that AI is *not intelligence*. Literally the *only* thing AI is is an algorythm that is been told *by humans* that data has a particular relation and it can then point out that same relation in data it has never seen before. See the chatgpt example: that "ai" does not understand your question at all. It gives you an answer that conforms to what it has been taught. It has information about how to form a sentence that advices against something, it has information about how to make the gas, it has endeless examples of sentences that contain similar advice, and all it does apply the patterns to the data. AI is not going to solve any propblems, *WE* are going to solve problems by feeding data in to an algorythm and designing the routines that makes sense of the data. Don't be Musked into thinking that it;s bad, Musk only objected because he wasn't involved yet and he wanted to slow down development until he could buy a company to get into the competetion.
But what about the people who'd rather write an exam than have to take an oral one? Just hearing about an oral exam made me anxious. Edit: Stephen's liberal arts major burn at the end, though. lol I also thought "Isn't that kind of hypocritical?"
its very hypocritical, hes already at a point in life where ai doesn't impact his ability to earn money, he views ai like CEOs view the people under them.
@@MechaMonkeyz Well, he was concerned about his books being used, but that made it hypocritical. You can't just clown people concerned about others having AI write their papers etc., then be concerned that the data the AI draws from is partly from you.
Also just like with Calculator and other tools, if a Tool can get the job done, like writing a term, it's down to who can utilize the tool best. You cannot block the progress of technology especially not with this amount of population. The AI like GPT is already out of the box and people are going to replicate and add to it independently. So you either adapt, and flow with the times, or become rigid and break.
doing 1 stupid thing arms x people. Doing 1 stupid multiplied AI capabilities can arm a lot of people. Not pondering that is just reckless and NOT wise.
Nope. Do not agree. This is not the invention of the doornob. It is something that is far reaching and nefarious. We have become accustomed to just accepting new tech, no matter what. That is the myth we follow. AI is made up of people, like us. Powerful people maybe but these decisions to roll it out into the world is only done because we collectively either don't care, shrug our shoulders, or encourage others to "get on the bandwagon and adapt". It's a big mistake to do that.
