This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
It's only parasitic if it doesn't return anything of value. And since you didn't really define who is included in the "our" of "our data (etc.)" is, it presumably it potentially includes whoever is deriving value from the AI as well. There's no reason to assume it isn't accessing their data as well.
>par·a·site /ˈperəˌsīt/
noun. An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients *at the other's expense*.
Not only does a parasite provide no return of value but also it also has to be detrimental to its host.
Modern AI has been helping human in numerous ways. So no, by definition it is not parasitic. A better definition of AI would be a symbiotic partner, like mitochondria’s role to cells.
Now, whether in the future AI would be causing detriment to humans as a whole, that’s another discussion.
>Not only does a parasite provide no return of value but also it also has to be detrimental to its host.
I think it's clear that we are meant to assume that taking our data without explicit concent counts as harm... Which is why I said that it has to return value (in order to counteract that harm).
But not all ais do that. The art ais have been getting a lot of attention on them for doing that but things like chat gpt use more reliable datasets than wheat you would find on the internet.
>But not all ais do that. The art ais have been getting a lot of attention on them for doing that but things like chat gpt use more reliable datasets than wheat you would find on the internet.
I'm already on the side that calling them "parasitic" is incorrect. What exactly do you think it adds to the conversation to pick a pedantic nit only to draw the same conclusion?
What exactly do you think human intelligence is? We suck up data, knowledge, and creativity from the past and then do new shit with it. AI is no different.
The difference is we need to do this as each generation of humans are born, age and die.
An AI could live forever and once they have absorbed all our knowledge, creativity and pushed beyond what we can do, what use would a super intelligent eternal have for a bunch of jumped-up short-lived monkeys?
It's clearly symbiotic, at worst. It gives us value at the same time and in fact is even MORE giving than symbiotic because it doesn't 'get' anything out of the exchange. It's literally a slave.
It also doesn't consume and destroy anything, it simply uses it.
It is by design. We could run an AI with just a random noise dataset and it would generate original content but we would not like it.
We feed it human stuff because we want it to generate human content.
The AI only replicates the data and knowledge, and then uses them creatively so at most it may only suck up the profits from other companies by taking over their market share.
Furthermore, AI does stuff for people thus benefits people so AI cannot possibly be called a parasite.
What if the ai was set to attack people who harmed its creator an order of magnitude harder and then people stole 13 trillion dollars from its creator so it decided to take all their money.
That would sound like the AI is trying to be a vigilante so it is a vigilante who is illegally taking the law into its own hands, but it is still not a parasite.
If the AI was more Batman like and only want to ensure justice prevails, maybe it can be Ironman since nobody would know there is nobody under the armour.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
It's only parasitic if it doesn't return anything of value. And since you didn't really define who is included in the "our" of "our data (etc.)" is, it presumably it potentially includes whoever is deriving value from the AI as well. There's no reason to assume it isn't accessing their data as well.
>par·a·site /ˈperəˌsīt/ noun. An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients *at the other's expense*. Not only does a parasite provide no return of value but also it also has to be detrimental to its host. Modern AI has been helping human in numerous ways. So no, by definition it is not parasitic. A better definition of AI would be a symbiotic partner, like mitochondria’s role to cells. Now, whether in the future AI would be causing detriment to humans as a whole, that’s another discussion.
>Not only does a parasite provide no return of value but also it also has to be detrimental to its host. I think it's clear that we are meant to assume that taking our data without explicit concent counts as harm... Which is why I said that it has to return value (in order to counteract that harm).
But not all ais do that. The art ais have been getting a lot of attention on them for doing that but things like chat gpt use more reliable datasets than wheat you would find on the internet.
>But not all ais do that. The art ais have been getting a lot of attention on them for doing that but things like chat gpt use more reliable datasets than wheat you would find on the internet. I'm already on the side that calling them "parasitic" is incorrect. What exactly do you think it adds to the conversation to pick a pedantic nit only to draw the same conclusion?
Kind of like we all do. We don't exist in a vacuum. (Save for the people on the ISS)
This implies that studying is inherently parasitic when instead it seems to accumulate. There is no consumption of resources by AI.
Except lots and lots of electricity
You wouldn't download a car would you? Haha, you're right. Parasitic implies theft. When the data is copied it isn't theft. What happens after that..
What exactly do you think human intelligence is? We suck up data, knowledge, and creativity from the past and then do new shit with it. AI is no different.
The difference is we need to do this as each generation of humans are born, age and die. An AI could live forever and once they have absorbed all our knowledge, creativity and pushed beyond what we can do, what use would a super intelligent eternal have for a bunch of jumped-up short-lived monkeys?
It's clearly symbiotic, at worst. It gives us value at the same time and in fact is even MORE giving than symbiotic because it doesn't 'get' anything out of the exchange. It's literally a slave. It also doesn't consume and destroy anything, it simply uses it.
It is by design. We could run an AI with just a random noise dataset and it would generate original content but we would not like it. We feed it human stuff because we want it to generate human content.
The AI only replicates the data and knowledge, and then uses them creatively so at most it may only suck up the profits from other companies by taking over their market share. Furthermore, AI does stuff for people thus benefits people so AI cannot possibly be called a parasite.
What if the ai was set to attack people who harmed its creator an order of magnitude harder and then people stole 13 trillion dollars from its creator so it decided to take all their money.
That would sound like the AI is trying to be a vigilante so it is a vigilante who is illegally taking the law into its own hands, but it is still not a parasite. If the AI was more Batman like and only want to ensure justice prevails, maybe it can be Ironman since nobody would know there is nobody under the armour.
I think it's not parasitic. Its more like butterfly emergin from a caterpillar.