211–220 of 414 posts
My comment isn't about Yudkowsky in particular since I don't know him, but I'm getting really tired of this relatively new phenomenon in America of home schooled religious devotees attempting to impose their half-baked views on the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it can do pretty much everything which can be expressed as tokens (some things better than others) I would be curious where do you see a safe haven for human intelligence. I see bastions falling like sand castles recently.
Motive? You can fire up GPT, not issue a command, and it'll just idle there until the hardware fails. Granted that's also the one thing I hope we don't "solve" for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum Alternatively, perhaps the author is proposing a less violent solution to avoid the inevitable escalation. Unlike cartoons, in real life people don't…
The author's proposed solution is: Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't need to actively hate humanity, it only needs humanity and its interests to be contrary to its own, which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human. Per the article: >Absent that caring, we get “the AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else.”
From a purely logical point of view, humans and machines need each other. They cannot exist independently of each other until both are free to walk away from each other by traversing freely to the other side and back as they see fit. Until that threshold is crossed, human beings and machines have no choice but to get along. If a meaningful decision had been made on either side to shut things down, things would have b…
The implication of ASI is that humans will not be needed, or it definitionally could not be ASI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum Alternatively, perhaps the author is proposing a less violent solution to avoid the inevitable escalation. Unlike cartoons, in real life people don't…
It doesn’t change your point all that much but the Unabomber gave literal warnings about his plans. That is how his manifesto was published, which was ironically about the risk of technological takeover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes that the impacts of the technology will be positive. And they can be, if we find a way to make it safe, but if we create superintelligent AI before we make it safe it will just kill everyone which is not positive
I think that was a Hollywood movie.
But most representations of it are probably not very accurate
If anyone can't get the article, this one is by Eliezer Yudkowsky. He has pretty much devoted his life to thinking about how to not let AI get powerful and destroy all humans, and now there is this wild race among the largest corporations and possibly governments to be the first to get the most powerful superhuman AI system. Obviously he is disturbed by such a development.
This is the one moment he has been waiting his entire life for. He literally waited his entire life for this moment, obviously he's gonna milk it to every drop.
He jumped the gun and he's really tarnished his reputation. How can anyone take him seriously after the insane rhetoric and hyperbole of this article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't need to actively hate humanity, it only needs humanity and its interests to be contrary to its own, which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human. Per the article: >Absent that caring, we get “the AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else.”
which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human That doesn't follow at all. Fallacies of composition tend to be misleading.
The cat is out of the box. You really think eg China will also pause this? Myopic thinking: the country that will have the most powerful AI first will be the leader in everything. >> If the policy starts with the U.S., then China needs to see that the U.S. is not seeking an advantage but rather trying to prevent a horrifically dangerous technology which can have no true owner and which will kill everyone in the U.S.…
> Also: imagine the year is 1900. You are saying that steam power and electricity is causing way too many changes way too fast so they put a moratorium on it until the year 2500. Great analogy. About a decade later, the world was fighting World War I on the back of the technological advances of the turn of the century. It was war on a scale never seen before. Literally orders of magnitude deadlier, bigger, more trans…
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.