←back to thread

263 points josephcsible | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.197s | source
Show context
crazygringo ◴[] No.46178534[source]
To be clear, you don't need AI for this.

You can also just call the railroad and report the bridge as damaged.

Hoaxes and pranks and fake threats have been around forever.

replies(5): >>46178555 #>>46178636 #>>46178664 #>>46180242 #>>46180407 #
ares623 ◴[] No.46178636[source]
Again, I see this argument.

“Bad X has happened before and unsolved. Why worry about bad X^2?”

Personally I’d prefer if it remained at X so solutions can catch up. But that’s just me.

replies(2): >>46178698 #>>46178913 #
1. Bjartr ◴[] No.46178698[source]
I think the implication is we already handle these events well enough pre-ai, and that the events are not necessarily more disruptive just because an ai was used to trigger them.

Implicit in this though is the assumption that the increase in awareness of these events has more to do with an ai being involved rather than the event actually being exceptional.