David Chapman, author of Meaningness, writes a book-length web essay arguing that AI is dangerous in ways beyond superintelligence and could be avoided.
HN commenters link it as a counterpoint to AI hype and cite its "backpropaganda" section on backpropagation, though some say it understates AI capabilities.
I both agree and disagree. On one hand, yeah, people dramatically overstate the capabilities of AI. I think we made a terrible divergence when we started even using the term "AI" in favor of "machine learning."
On the other hand, the examples given on this page:
https://betterwithout.ai/AI-already-at-war
Are pretty accurate descriptions of capabilities within the space, lots of real examples there. It's genuinely not hard to imagine in a few decades they might actually pose a "medium-level apocalyptic threat" as the author puts it.
Arguably their present-day use is already disruptive to societal norms. Easy to imagine it getting out of hand.
>Pandora's box is open, the genie's bottle is uncorked
As someone who's followed AI safety for over a decade now, it's been frustrating to see reactions flip from "it's too early to do any useful work!" to "it's too late to do any useful work!", with barely any time intervening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AW4nSq0hAc
Perhaps it is worth actually reading a book like this one (posted to HN yesterday) before concluding that it's too late to do anything? https://betterwithout.ai/only-you-can-stop-an-AI-apocalypse
You might be interested in the writings of "Better Without AI", your comment immediately makes me think of this: https://betterwithout.ai/gradient-dissent#backpropaganda