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

Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#21

Post by williamcotton »

rvz wrote: post #15
williamcotton wrote: post #11

The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. I have been making this argument for years with regards to human actors but perhaps with enough fear of the machines sentiment coursing through society the argument will now be considered. Authentically Human in a World of ChatGPT https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/authentically-human-i... And the article from years ago: The Tyranny of…

> The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. Governments totally love this antidote. I wonder who could be selling this sort of snake-oil to them whilst also being on the other side selling the poison... ...No-one else but Sam Altman's World Coin scam. [0] [0] https://worldcoin.org/blog/engineering/humanness-in-the-age-...

I make no case for requiring such identification, rather that it be optional, much like how the post office is optional and FedEx is still allowed to operate!

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#22

Post by lancesells »

nologic01 wrote: post #4

> the average person will not be able to know what is true anymore We barely held things together as society without AI unleashing cognitive noise at industrial scale. Somehow we must find ways to re-channel the potential of digital technology for the betterment of society, not its annihilation.

Ending the internet would probably do it. Noise goes way down when you only have x amount of news sources and outlets.

We could still have things like maps, messages, etc. that are all very beneficial.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#23

Post by williamcotton »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18
version_five wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming this is satire. This is exactly my concern about all the recent hype - people are going to use it as an excuse to lock down computing, for commercial benefit and as a power grab.

Authentication != locking down computing. Content that’s cryptographically signed by its creator would (hopefully) have more credence than unsigned AI generated fake content purporting to be from someone else, e.g. deepfakes. Anonymity would not be heavy-handedly prohibited; rather, anonymous content would simply appear untrustworthy relative to authenticated content. It is up to the viewer to decide.

I never argued that anonymity should be prohibited.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#24

Post by amelius »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #18
version_five wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming this is satire. This is exactly my concern about all the recent hype - people are going to use it as an excuse to lock down computing, for commercial benefit and as a power grab.

Authentication != locking down computing. Content that’s cryptographically signed by its creator would (hopefully) have more credence than unsigned AI generated fake content purporting to be from someone else, e.g. deepfakes. Anonymity would not be heavy-handedly prohibited; rather, anonymous content would simply appear untrustworthy relative to authenticated content. It is up to the viewer to decide.

Can't we have anonymity AND authentication somehow?

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#25

Post by hungryforcodes »

williamcotton wrote: post #11

The first step is state-issued public-key cryptographic identification cards. I have been making this argument for years with regards to human actors but perhaps with enough fear of the machines sentiment coursing through society the argument will now be considered. Authentically Human in a World of ChatGPT https://www.williamcotton.com/articles/authentically-human-i... And the article from years ago: The Tyranny of…

Sure, all the governments would LOVE this!

I'll take my chances with AI fake posts. At least I can just ignore them.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#26

Post by nigamanth »

One question for the tech experts, of course people can use AI and technology for bad and illegal activities, but isn't that the case about everything?

The person who invented the car didn't think about people using it to smuggle drugs or trample other people on purpose, and the wright brothers didn't think about all the people who would die due to plane crashes.

So instead of focusing on the bad that's happening with AI, can't we just look at all the people he has helped with his work on AI?

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#27

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

lancesells wrote: post #22
nologic01 wrote: post #4

> the average person will not be able to know what is true anymore We barely held things together as society without AI unleashing cognitive noise at industrial scale. Somehow we must find ways to re-channel the potential of digital technology for the betterment of society, not its annihilation.

Ending the internet would probably do it. Noise goes way down when you only have x amount of news sources and outlets. We could still have things like maps, messages, etc. that are all very beneficial.

Without the internet there’s nothing entertaining millions of people who would be very incentives to protest.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#28

Post by ramraj07 »

saynay wrote: post #10
ramraj07 wrote: post #2

What little consolation I had that maybe the experts of AI who continued to insist we needn’t worry too much know better, evaporates with this news. I am reminded that even a year back the experts were absolutely confident (as is mentioned in this article, including Hinton) that really intelligent AI is 30 years ahead. Anyone still trying to argue that we needn’t worry about AI, better have a mathematical proof of th…

Most still believe that "really intelligent AI" is still a long way off, from what I have seen. Many have started to believe there can be a lot of harm caused by the systems well before then, however.

From the article: “The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,” he said. “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.”

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#29

Post by amelius »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #20
nologic01 wrote: post #4

> the average person will not be able to know what is true anymore We barely held things together as society without AI unleashing cognitive noise at industrial scale. Somehow we must find ways to re-channel the potential of digital technology for the betterment of society, not its annihilation.

I don't think it will be so bad. All Internet comment sections, pictures, video, and really anything on electronic screens will become assumed false by default. Therefore the only use of the Internet and most technology capable of generating audio and video will be entertainment. I already distrust-by-default most of what is online that isn't hard reference material, even if not AI generated.

No, there will be echo-chambers where some content will resonate. This can be partly fake content.

Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead

#30

Post by ramraj07 »

morelandjs wrote: post #9
ramraj07 wrote: post #2

What little consolation I had that maybe the experts of AI who continued to insist we needn’t worry too much know better, evaporates with this news. I am reminded that even a year back the experts were absolutely confident (as is mentioned in this article, including Hinton) that really intelligent AI is 30 years ahead. Anyone still trying to argue that we needn’t worry about AI, better have a mathematical proof of th…

What exactly are people proposing? We bury our head in the sand and ban the development of neural networks? Sure, we can all agree to be worried about it, but I don’t see what drumming up anxiety accomplishes. The world changing is nothing new.

Government restricts public release of GPT-like research any further and starts treating it like the nuclear-esque risk that it is.
Post reply on HN