241–250 of 414 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"he's gonna milk it to every drop" is such an odd take. eliezer has long been concerned about AI and the risks it poses to humanity. and for just as long people have called him crazy and made hand-waving arguments for why we shouldn't be concerned. now we're in the midst of an AI arms race and we don't have any good idea how this tech works. it progresses at a truly astonishing rate, where it's become sport to find i…
> It's become sport to find instances of people saying "AI will never be capable of X" and showing them the latest AI doing X with ease. Interesting, I've not seen that many educated in technology make that claim that it will never , just that people are surprised that the folks leading this, Microsoft and Google, have a track record of turning their consumer facing products to advertised junk.
Especially in the arts. Granted, that's dropped dramatically over the last decade since ML started taking off.
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?
LLMs wont achieve superintelligence alone. He's jumped the gun and has now put on a clown wig.
This is so asinine. A superb example of how people fear what they do not understand. Technology often is no exception to that.
I don't agree with the author, but I do think this technology is obviously a massive chaotic force the likes we haven't seen before and likely dangerous, at a minimum, economically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alignment is necessary for AGI, but not always for narrowly scoped AI for specific purposes. However, it may be completely ineffective in that capacity.
Alignment is impossible for AGI. If you control what it can and cannot be, it's not an AGI. If it's an AGI, it will decide for itself what it is going to be, and you can't stop it.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the word "super" mean to you? In some ways, GPT4 is already superintelligent. So is ChatGPT 3.5. Do you know anyone who can translate natural language to code as fast as GPT 3.5, or, given a few paragraphs of reference text, perfectly tutor a child on any subject under the sun at a moment's notice like GPT4 is doing for Khan Academy? How many artists do you know who can produce almost any style of artwork w…
If like that, computers are super-human long ago with their calculation capacity or memory or retrieval speed.
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.
The problem is game theory. Geopolitical tensions mean that governments have a vested interest in pursuing this potential catastrophe-in-the-making.
Like the First, Second, and Third World Wars, the winning move is not to play.