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

Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 414 posts

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#151

Post by jamilton »

pasttense01 wrote: post #99

I think everyone should look at this chart of productivity increases since World War II: https://www.bls.gov/productivity/images/pfei.png Notice how productivity increases averaged 1.5%/year since 2007--in a period of massive increases in computer capabilities vs 2.8%/year in the 1947-1973 era. Thus I am very doubtful the AI will have all these massive effects.

I don't find that a very convincing line of reasoning. Because the US's growth is slower than it was before the digital era, AI will never be dangerous? These are unrelated concepts. Whether AI can be dangerous isn't an economics problem, except insofar as AI research can get funding.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#152

Post by kwanbix »

boringuser2 wrote: post #150

Isn't it interesting that we are probably going to be annihilated by AI and there's basically nothing we can do about it, because we can't predict its emergence or suppress the incentives to develop it? I want to know greatly what this implies about life vis-a-vis Fermi's paradox. Are we potentially risking intervention from a "peace-keeping" race that suppresses civilizations on the cusp of generating AI?

As if 38 years of Terminator movies, haven't taught us nothing!

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#153

Post by jamilton »

atemerev wrote: post #127

If AI would be genuinely better than humans, so, what’s the problem? All of us are going to die anyway. I don’t see any difference where our species evolution will be continued, in meat or in silicon. Whatever is better, is fine.

Most people would prefer not to be killed.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#154

Post by jamilton »

htrp wrote: post #39

> Many researchers working on these systems think that we’re plunging toward a catastrophe, with more of them daring to say it in private than in public; but they think that they can’t unilaterally stop the forward plunge, that others will go on even if they personally quit their jobs. this seems like a very broad unfounded statement. Can we even find AI researchers who have said this on twitter?

You can find anything on Twitter.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#156

Post by zarzavat »

deafpolygon wrote: post #146
zarzavat wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t think of any technological innovations that were net negatives? We have a moral obligation to assess every new technology to determine its safety and effects on society. Blindly stepping on the gas in the name of progress is how you end up in a polluted wasteland. There are places like that on planet Earth, but I’m guessing you’d choose not to live there.

Even the most horrible innovations have eventually been found to be a net positive.

CFCs? Thalidomide? Come to think of it, pharma is positively rife with examples of stepping on the gas and causing disease or killing people. You won’t find many people who want to defund the FDA, although I guess there’s always a few nutters.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#157

Post by Agingcoder »

jamestimmins wrote: post #29

I've used GPT-4, and while extremely impressive, it doesn't feel like we're all that much closer to super-intelligent AI than we were last month or last year. It feels like Google on steroids, but the gap between GPT-4 and AGI still feels massive. This seems like so much putting the cart way ahead of the horse.

I think the problem is the gradient, not the current state of chatgpt. Given how much better gpt4 is over gpt3 (I've used both) , some people are getting worried.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#158

Post by deafpolygon »

zarzavat wrote: post #156
deafpolygon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the most horrible innovations have eventually been found to be a net positive.

CFCs? Thalidomide? Come to think of it, pharma is positively rife with examples of stepping on the gas and causing disease or killing people. You won’t find many people who want to defund the FDA, although I guess there’s always a few nutters.

CFCs, as terrible as they were, played a big role in industrialization. Could we have gotten there without it? Absolutely. Maybe we could have developed something else far worse than CFCs in its place! The phase out of CFCs brought our attention to the impact our (human) activities have on the planet.

Fallout from the use of thalidomide led to important changes to regulations. Currently, it is being used for therapeutic uses in cancer treatments.

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#159

Post by Atreiden »

extasia wrote: post #148
flangola7 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I like to think we (and our organic matter relatives) are hard to kill. Or at least to completely eradicate... so we will be around, or some proxy for us. What is your hard evidence or reasoning for this? As I see it humans are quite vulnerable and will be as trivial to inadvertently eradicate as the dodo bird.

Humans are much more resilient than dodo birds. Dodos were pretty devolved due to their insulated habitat[0]. 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_gigantism

I think that's his point. Currently, we have no natural predators. We completely outclass every other species on Earth in intelligence, and it's easy to see how advantageous that trait has been.

What happens when we're no longer the Apex Intelligence?

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#160

Post by NhanH »

arisAlexis wrote: post #142
NhanH wrote: post #68

I've known about Eliezer Yudkowsky's ideas for a long time, but here is something I've never seen: what actually he has produced, in term of scientific output? I've read plenty of his lesswrong's writing on the idea of rationalist, as well as plenty more on the AI alignment side (obviously including the famous basilisk). But can someone please point me to some results from the last 2 decades of his works? Either from…

What do people thinking hard about problems that are not solvable produce? Philosophy for example. Yudklowsky created the field of ai safety thinking isn't that enough? What would be your benefit of discrediting him for which argument?

> What would be your benefit of discrediting him for which argument?

He is asking the government to nuke people under certain scenarios. I'm taking his words seriously and ask for original research to understand the point, and now that is discrediting him? And I will quote the statement in the article so that it is clear I am not exaggerating

> preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.

My benefit is that I'm living on Earth and I'd much prefer for no nuke to ever be used again.

Post reply on HN