More people will die from suppressing AI than from the imaginary AI apocalypse. They'll die from restricting safe self-driving cars that are 90% better drivers than people who kill 1.5 million people and injure 50 million more every year. They'll die from the vaccines and cures that never get created. They'll die from all the myriad of helpful inventions that never get created by geniuses in a datacenter. They'll die from preventable diseases that they could have asked their chat bots about so they were better informed when they went to see their doctors but who couldn't ask because short-sighted legislators made it so the chat bots had to refuse to answer. They'll die from the slower economy that stifles robot driven factories over wildly overblown jobs apocalypse fears which will mean we never get a vast array of new and more affordable goods. They'll die from the cheaper solar panels and batteries that would get made by those automated factories which would slow climate damage and provide cheap energy to undeserved areas. They'll die from the super smart tele-AI doctors that never get deployed to remote areas. And they'll die as fanatics from the stop AI movement radicalize their followers to shoot people or throw firebombs.

Daniel, the majority of AI being thrust upon the public has achieved absolutely none of the utopia you’re claiming is possible/inevitable. Nobody doesn’t want cancer cures and advancement for the good of all people: they don’t want dangerous techno-oligarchy (which we’re literally seeing all over, self-admitted by the companies at the coalface), or a wealth gap, or unemployment because some twat wants a slightly better wage p and L. Until companies shut the fuck up and stop attacking creative industries, and white collar jobs and service jobs and keep threatening to make people redundant and obsolete and then gaslighting them into thinking it’s their fault for not “embracing it” as if it’s a turkey can determine its future by choosing to embrace being thanksgiving dinner, then we are right to be concerned. And no hysterical posturing about theoretical outcomes that won’t fucking benefit everyone anyway will change that. It’s like you people do not fundamentally understand - or care to understand - people.

Actually, AI already saves lives. In several countries, mammograms are examined by AI and radiologists. Reliability is improved. In the EU, every car sold must be equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking Systems. That's AI. They reduce frontal collisions by 40%. Modern MRI machines are equipped with AI technology that reduces the time of imaging by 4x or more. You can now get a full-body MRI in 40 minutes for about $1000. Reduced time -> reduced cost -> more/earlier detection. And that's not counting the progress in medicine enabled by modern AI, including Nobel Prize-winning protein structure prediction.

To be clear, there is no consistent evidence that asymptomatic/average risk people have improved outcomes from full body MRI, regardless of cost or time. It seems intuitive, but there are a lot of relatively risky invasive tests that come after an incidental finding. In many cases, it would be better not to find them while randomly imaging asymptomatic people.

@austingmeyer @Dan_Jeffries1 I wasn't advocating the indiscriminate use of full-body MRIs, but the fact that the technology that makes this possible reduces the time and cost of an MRI exam is intrinsically a Good Thing.

I agree that it is definitely a good thing for things to be cheaper. It’s just that the thread was about saving lives. I worry about the narrative that extensive imaging saves lives because it can be surprisingly insidious and dangerous. Especially coming from important and influential people.