Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

futureoflife.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#101

Post by tazjin »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #85
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #67

I'm really disappointed to see the HN reaction of straight up scoffing at this like it's irreversible and so let's just step on the gas. It's some weird combination of techno-utopianism and nihilism and good old elitism.

AGI is a break-capitalism lottery ticket I'm willing to entertain. If the marginal cost of labor collapses to zero then either we'll get robot police or finally be free to pursue lives of leisure.

Take the time to read a very pessimistic take like (like [0]) and see if you reconsider.

[0]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#103

Post by thomasahle »

People are talking like it's impossible to do slow things down.

In fact, simple measures like forbidding deployments of models with more than a certain number of parameters would probably slow things down a lot. Sure, people and companies could still continue development in secret, but without the funding and experience from products like ChatGPT, it would be harder.

People also say China wouldn't follow, but generally China has a lot more control of it's tech sector than the US. Just look at Jack Ma and other CEOs that didn't follow the party line.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#104

Post by fwlr »

Some of those signatories are indeed interesting.

Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak.

Some big companies are there: the CEOs/co-founders of Skype, Pinterest, Ripple.

Some AI companies are there too. CEOs/founders/head researchers from Stability, DeepMind, Metaculus. Some Microsoft employees, but no big repsentatives.

Academic AI research is there, including Stuart Russell, John Hopfield and Max Tegmark.

Some major names from the AGI Risk field too; Steve Omohundro, Roman Yampolskiy, Alyssa Vance, Nate Soares.

I don’t see Bostrom, Kurzweil, Yudkowsky, Norvig - at least not yet. No one from OpenAI, unsurprisingly.

Interesting. Wonder what sparked this.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#106

Post by kelseyfrog »

riku_iki wrote: post #9
hot_gril wrote: post #4

Big red font at top says "EMBARGOED UNTIL WEDNESDAY MARCH 29 00:01 AM EDT. No media coverage & no online linking." I'm sorry but who do these people think they are? Next...

They have 900 signatures already..

I signed it as Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg paired with strategic portfolio moves.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#107

Post by cmsonger »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #85
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #67

I'm really disappointed to see the HN reaction of straight up scoffing at this like it's irreversible and so let's just step on the gas. It's some weird combination of techno-utopianism and nihilism and good old elitism.

AGI is a break-capitalism lottery ticket I'm willing to entertain. If the marginal cost of labor collapses to zero then either we'll get robot police or finally be free to pursue lives of leisure.

Except that it's going to be robot police. What in the current world order suggests labor wins. Who controls LLMs? Who has the compute to produce AGI?

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#108

Post by twblalock »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #67

I'm really disappointed to see the HN reaction of straight up scoffing at this like it's irreversible and so let's just step on the gas. It's some weird combination of techno-utopianism and nihilism and good old elitism.

It really is irreversible. The methods and compute needed to build a GPT-type AI are widely available.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#109

Post by larve »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #5

"Please stop training these AI" is almost comical, even if they are right and the signers are significant. It would be far more effective to lobby for legislation on, say, liability related to the use of AI, data privacy (especially when it comes to training datasets), psycological manipulation, actual AGI research bounds and so on. They are just burning donator money with messages like that, and the research is not…

The message is "pause training for a few months so we can figure out how to approach liability, safety and regulation". You are fighting a strawman.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#110

Post by gordian-mind »

thomasahle wrote: post #86
petilon wrote: post #68

> Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? You don't necessarily need jobs because you don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that cou…

> Because of productivity gains humans will work very little, and yet live comfortably. Wouldn't this imply humans should already be working very little compared to pre industrial revolution? Instead it seems we work more [1]. And with less fulfilling work. I agree however that we have may have more stuff (or wealth). So going by this projection, in the future we'll have even more stuff, and work even more in even le…

Well, pre-industrial societies usually enjoyed a very efficient type of political system. Maybe replacing our current one with some form of AI with let us enjoy these blessed times again.
Post reply on HN