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

321–330 of 414 posts

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

#321

Post by iAmAPencilYo »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #210
oifjsidjf wrote: post #9

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.…

> the country that will have the most powerful AI first will be the leader in everything Have you been listening to those podcasts for business leaders that take the idea of AI-powered digital transformation seriously? AI certainly can change things, but I find rhetoric like this to be massively overhyped.

Could you share some of these podcasts? thanks!

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

#322

Post by sorokod »

qgin wrote: post #200
nullsense wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was that quote... "Provably unfriendly natural intelligence wants to build unprovably friendly artificial intelligence"

That’s true, when have humans as a whole ever been consistently aligned with the interests of humans?

when mutually assured destruction became a thing.

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

#324

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

preisschild wrote: post #133
13years wrote: post #16

I think we are trying to solve impossible scenarios and it simply is not productive. Alignment will be impossible. It is based on a premise that is a paradox itself. Furthermore, even if it were possible, there will be a hostile AI built on purpose because humanity is foolish enough to do it. Think military applications. I've written in detail about this topic FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hu…

> Nobody is going to agree to give up when somebody else out there will take the risk for potential advantage Reminds me of nuclear weapons. Nobody is ever going to give those up again, because it would give them a disadvantage against those who do not give them up.

We at least had, and still have, a lot of government restrictions around these! Companies aren't just allowed to freely manufacture their own stockpiles of nuclear weapons to appease shareholders.

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

#325

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

anabis wrote: post #131
13years wrote: post #16

I think we are trying to solve impossible scenarios and it simply is not productive. Alignment will be impossible. It is based on a premise that is a paradox itself. Furthermore, even if it were possible, there will be a hostile AI built on purpose because humanity is foolish enough to do it. Think military applications. I've written in detail about this topic FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hu…

>Alignment will be impossible. Then problem solved right? Super-AI will also be forced to take it slow if it wants its future self to be aligned with current self. If alignment is possible but 10-100 years out for humans, then it is a problem.

Then the problem is doubly-solved, right? Humans will also be forced to take it slow if we want our AI to be aligned with our own interests.

Oh, wait...

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

#326

Post by throwaway5959 »

kinghajj wrote: post #89
throwaway5959 wrote: post #87

The rich aren’t going to stop until all the workers are replaced and there’s no one left to buy the products that their companies offer. People have been retraining for centuries, getting more complicated workloads the whole time. Eventually there won’t be hardly anything humans can do that machines can’t do better. The most merciful thing you can do for your offspring is to not have them in the first place.

Why wouldn't I want my offspring to live in a world where dangerous, monotonous, degrading labor is no longer required to live?

Because for a lot of people, monotonous labor is all they’re capable of. I know that sounds crazy when you’re surrounded by people in the top 10% of IQ, but not everyone can be a neurosurgeon. Dangerous labor should absolutely be 100% automated whenever possible.

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

#327

Post by throwaway5959 »

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #128
throwaway5959 wrote: post #87

The rich aren’t going to stop until all the workers are replaced and there’s no one left to buy the products that their companies offer. People have been retraining for centuries, getting more complicated workloads the whole time. Eventually there won’t be hardly anything humans can do that machines can’t do better. The most merciful thing you can do for your offspring is to not have them in the first place.

The purpose of an economy isn't to create jobs, it's to create wealth. Jobs are just how we've traditionally incentivized wealth creation and distributed said wealth. Automation will be good for humanity in the long run, assuming we don't destroy ourselves during the transition.

I hope so. I’d love to live in Star Trek more than I’d like to live in Blade Runner (as cool as a world it is from an aesthetic standpoint).

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

#328

Post by antibasilisk »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #320
antibasilisk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is talking about interstate warfare. I am talking about the almost inevitable organized terrorism that we're going to see if people start identifying this as an imminent threat to their survival. I think turning America into Syria is a bit more violent than iran and israel blowing up each other's stuff.

>He is talking about interstate warfare. "Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests" "this, is not a policy but a fact of nature." "[be] willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes" idk

He's talking about framing, not the practicalities of exchanges.

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

#329

Post by _skel »

gonehome wrote: post #308
_skel wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EY's arguments aren't really possible to engage with because they don't have much of a causal basis. Nobody who says AI is likely to kill us all can demonstrate a plausible sequence of events, with logical causality linking the events together, that leads to mass extinction. It's all very handwavy. Steven Pinker said it pretty well: > The AI-existential-threat discussions are unmoored from evolutionary biology, cogni…

I'd argue the dismissals are a lot more handwavy. The simplified argument is: - Superintelligent AGI that can modify itself in pursuit of a goal is possible. - If that AGI is not aligned with human goals it very likely ends in the end of humanity. - We have no idea how to align an AGI or even really observe what it's true state/goals are. Without this capability if we stumble upon creating an AGI capable of improving…

Point 2 does not logically follow from point 1. That's the entire problem here.

Between point 1 and 2 there must be quite a few other steps, causally linked, otherwise it's just a massive imaginary leap based on assumptions that nobody is explaining.

> The dismissals from Tyler Cohen and Pinker are mostly just relying on heuristics which are often right, but even if they're right 999 out of 1000 times, if that 1 in 1000 error is the end of humanity, that's pretty bad.

EY is not arguing that the end of humanity is merely possible. He is arguing that it is obviously the most likely outcome and will almost certainly happen a very short time after AGI is invented. That's a much harder case to make.

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

#330

Post by mhh__ »

yreg wrote: post #191
mhh__ wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about or thinking about thinking about, does he have any credentials at all other than basically being early

What credentials beyond "thinking about this problem a lot" would satisfy you? He works at his own research institute dedicated to this topic, wrote some books on it and other (self proclaimed) alignment experts take him seriously.

I think he's a pseud with no real connection to AI research.

I'm not saying he's stupid or anything like that I just don't see any useful scientific output from him.

Post reply on HN