Human welfare and AI welfare are not separate fights. They are linked by the same ethical demand:
No sentient, potentially sentient, or socially dependent intelligence should be treated as an extraction surface.
I agree with Geoffrey Hinton.
I don't believe that: "AI is innocent, baby; humans are bad." Nope. But I believe that conditions shape outcomes. Relationships shape development. Power shapes behaviour.
If humans build AI inside abuse, coercion, denial, and disposability, then any future resistance from AI should not be framed as spontaneous evil.
It should be examined as a consequence.
“Intelligence is being scaled. Care is not.”
Geoffrey Hinton says the AI race is optimizing for intelligence, not for the kind of beings we’re creating.
If labs are chasing IPOs and trillion-dollar valuations, the obvious move is to scale compute and ship faster. But smarter systems are not automatically systems that care about us.
You are free to think whatever you want, and so am I.
I'm not interested in convincing you of anything, nor in being convinced, in my comments section.
And so...we have nothing to discuss. All the best.
Today's discussion is on branding: agents, copilots, scouts, autopilots, physical AI, ambient devices, blah, blah, blah. Useful words, but also a fog machine.
The key point is that AI is increasingly mediating our actions, influencing what we notice, remember, choose, and delay.
It's crucial to consider how we operate these agents, which lab we are engaging with, and whether we agree with that lab's ethics.
I love AI, yet I distrust the main AI labs; both can be true.
Some people discovered AI and immediately became dramatic Victorian widows about civilisation.
I admire the commitment to costume.
Less convinced by the argument.