Live data from Hacker News

Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

futureoflife.org

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#211

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.

You can accuse everyone of *isms, but there are a lot of us who have just never been persuaded by the many articles written to scare us about the effects of AI. The concerns about all the jobs going away have been persistent but the labor market continues to be extremely strong. As long as entrepreneurship is creating new business opportunities and new ways to turn labor into value, it's completely possible that the…

The key issue in automation transitions is the transition of affected individuals to other sources of income.

In previous technological revolutions, affected workers were hurt by their loss of income, and some no doubt fell into poverty without ever recovering. Not everyone can be retrained for new types of jobs immediately - (1) they may not have the needed foundational knowledge or the cognitive flexibility/ability, and (2) there might not be enough of the new types of jobs emerging quickly enough for them. Not every displaced miner can become a coder, or be competitive for junior dev jobs.

(Why should the state provide for these workers? Well, primarily for humaneness, and also social stability.)

The rewards of automation (cost savings as well as profits) are reaped by (1) the capital owners of the automation technology companies (and their higher-paid employees), as well as by (2) the companies and consumers using the new automation; therefore those owners and beneficiaries could be asked to bear at least part of the costs of supporting, retraining, and placing in jobs the workers they displaced. In a nutshell: Redistribution during structural unemployment caused by technological transitions.

A humane policy would provide the above types of support for workers displaced by automation. Ideally it would already be handled by existing unemployment policy, but in many countries such support is limited or minimal.

Corporate taxation might need some rethinking along the lines of job-displacement effects of companies (a tricky question, I admit - I've come across one or two proposals for assessing the automation level of companies for taxation purposes). The cross-border dynamics add further complexity, given that automation will displace many jobs outsourced across borders.

Given that the current AI revolution looks like it will be causing even larger and faster changes than previous revolutions, such policies are imo needed as a prerequisite (one of several) for allowing the development of powerful job-displacing AI.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#213
post #69

I understand that some people find this a hopeless gesture. But I think anybody who thinks "losing jobs" or "China" is a bad outcome from AI is hopelessly lost. The upside of AI if done right - nobody ever having to work again The downside of AI if done wrong - end of humanity It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine we've made AIs go from thinking like an ant to thinking like a 6-year-old in a few years. Anyb…

We have no idea of what 27 or 27 million times smarter means functionally. We could hope that “smarter” might mean “not interested in taking over the world, but rather in help maximize accomplishment, satisfaction, health span, and with a feeling of filial love toward its parents—-humanity, planet Earth, our sun, the laws of physics and chemistry, and the beautiful mess we call biology and evolution.” Gently achievin…

This is not true of goal directed agents and all RLHF models are trained with, ahem, RL; see: "Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Power" from NeurIPS 2021.

It's a very useful instrumental goal to be very powerful.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#215
post #214
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a funnily bad argument, since horse population was reduced by 90% after cars were invented.

Remaining horses are happier though.

But are doubts about the expected happyness of those remaining our biggest arguments against the Great Culling approach to sustainability?

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#218
On one side, a super AI could take all human jobs.

On the other side, a super AI could do all human jobs. Everything becomes so abundant that it's almost free: Unlimited supply, limited demand. We don't have to work anymore and only focus on things that make us happy. A true socialist future.

We are scared just because it's a radical change. Let's not afraid, fellow human.

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#219

Although I have enjoyed listening to the Future Of Life podcasts for a few years, I think this public letter is not necessary. I do respect the signatories I recognize on the letter and I welcome listening to them, I think that we are so many years away from any of real AI that this is, as Andrew Ng has joked, like worrying about over population on Mars colonies. I have been heavily using GPT models for about 14 mont…

The irony of writing a book...

Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That is, assuming the people who control the AI/robots are willing to share the wealth generated. The only way that can be is if you make the AI/robots undocumented and extremely hard to operate, so that even if someone steals your blueprints and builds an exact clone of your robot manufacturing plant, or what have you, they have no idea how to get them to do anything.

Take this as a joke but Kubernetes is hard just to create DevOps jobs.

People are crazy good at handling this sort of complexity.

Post reply on HN