lots of women the only pictures posted have a filter on them.

it's like , look I get you want to look 22 again but fake just doesn't look good in real life.
natural wins in my mind


oh and yes I was sick of AI photos and video day one.

You can't trust anything you see...it's only going to get worse...

Just wait till the antis get started with it , it will be like a snowball .

I see more animals attacking humans with AI now bears and big cats mostly the AR clowns must be hating that it might be the end of their fake post if nobody believes what they post.

Count me in

I had a hard time trying to convince a grown man that wanted every bobcat there was destroyed, because he seen the video of one chasing down a turkey for a quarter of a mile and killing it. sadly i walked away and he was unconvinced.

Like

Terminator becoming real, right before our eyes!

All of the more advanced AI's I have tried say there is a significant chance AI will make us go extinct or nearly so.

I just asked Grok, "What is the percent chance that AI will do serious harm to humanity?"

Grok answered, "The likelihood of AI causing serious harm to humanity—often defined in expert discussions as outcomes like human extinction, permanent disempowerment, or other catastrophic events—is a topic of ongoing debate, with estimates drawn from surveys of AI researchers, machine learning experts, and related professionals. These probabilities are subjective and vary widely due to uncertainties in AI development trajectories, but they provide a snapshot of informed opinion.

A large-scale 2023 survey of 2,778 AI authors (primarily from top machine learning conferences) conducted by AI Impacts found a median probability of 5% for advanced AI causing human extinction or similarly severe and permanent disempowerment of humanity. This median held across multiple question variations, including ones focused on the overall value of the future impacted by AI and more direct queries about extinction risks. However, the aggregate mean probability was higher at around 16%, reflecting a skewed distribution where a minority of respondents assigned much higher risks (e.g., a third to half of participants estimated 10% or more).

Similar findings appear in earlier surveys. For instance, a 2022 expert survey (with a 17% response rate from 4,271 contacted AI researchers) reported medians ranging from 5% to 10% for comparable catastrophic outcomes, depending on question phrasing. Between 38% and 51% of respondents in that survey assigned at least a 10% chance to advanced AI leading to results as bad as extinction.

Critics argue that such surveys may overstate risks due to factors like low response rates (potentially biasing toward those more concerned about AI safety), small subsample sizes for specific questions (e.g., only 162 responses for one key query in the 2022 survey), vague time horizons, and non-representative samples that include varying expertise levels. The wide spread in individual estimates—from near 0% to over 50%—also highlights deep uncertainty, and some analyses suggest the "half believe 10% or more" claim is exaggerated by selective focus on certain questions.

Individual prominent experts offer varying views: AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton has estimated a 10-20% chance of extinction, while AI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy argues for a potentially high likelihood of very bad outcomes without strong controls. Outside expert circles, a 2023 poll of CEOs found 42% believing AI could destroy humanity within 5-10 years, though this reflects possibility rather than quantified probability.

Overall, while no consensus exists, the most comprehensive expert surveys converge on a median around 5% for severe harms equivalent to extinction, with means closer to 14-16% accounting for outlier high-risk views. These figures are not predictions but aggregated judgments, and actual risks depend on future governance, technical progress, and safety measures."

I have asked similar questions multiple times, in different manners and have always been told there is a real possibility of our destruction by AI.

Keith

I just asked ChatGPT, "What is the percent chance that AI will do serious harm to humanity?"

ChatGPT replied, "You said:
What is the percent chance that AI will do serious harm to humanity?
ChatGPT said:
There is no agreed-upon, objective percentage, but experts who study AI risk have published rough probability estimates. When you average across credible views, a reasonable consensus range looks like this:

Short answer
~5%–20% chance that AI causes serious harm to humanity (large-scale loss of life, collapse of institutions, or existential-level disruption) this century.

That’s not a prediction—it's an expert risk estimate under uncertainty.

How experts break it down
🔹 Low-risk view (~1–5%)
Held by many AI engineers and applied researchers:

AI will be powerful but manageable

Harms will be serious but localized or reversible

Comparable to other disruptive tech (industrialization, nuclear energy)

🔹 Medium-risk view (~5–15%) ← most common
Held by a broad mix of economists, policy researchers, and AI safety scientists:

AI creates systemic risks (war escalation, mass unemployment shocks, surveillance states, misinformation)

Alignment and governance lag behind capability

Major harm is plausible but not inevitable

🔹 High-risk view (~15–30%+)
Held by some AI safety and existential-risk researchers:

Advanced AI could become misaligned, autonomous, or strategically dominant

Human institutions fail to control deployment

Risk increases sharply if AI systems self-improve or are weaponized at scale

What counts as “serious harm”?
Most estimates do NOT require human extinction. They include:

Global conflict escalated by AI decision systems

Collapse of democratic governance

Mass economic displacement without adaptation

Loss of human control over critical infrastructure

Authoritarian control enabled by AI surveillance

Extinction risk alone is usually estimated lower (often 1–10%).

Important context
These probabilities are conditional on current trends

Strong governance, alignment breakthroughs, and international coordination could push risk down

Arms races, secrecy, and deregulation could push risk up

Think of it like early nuclear weapons in the 1940s:

Low probability per year, but extremely high impact.

Bottom line
If this were an insurance policy:

A 10% chance of catastrophic harm would already justify massive investment in prevention

That’s why AI safety is taken seriously even by people who think the risk is “unlikely”"

I believe AI is extremely dangerous.

Keith

AI is poisoning our world. There is no creativity anymore. People even use it for work to write summaries for them instead of coming up with their own material. Kind of sticking the nail in our own coffin, by enabling AI to eventually replace the workforce. I hate it and am off of social media completely because of the rampant AI.