After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly.
Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
81–90 of 1001 posts
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#82Full New York Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/technology/ai-google-chat...
not an interview
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#83After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly. Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
Fame and greed, what else.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems roughly in line with the article. He left to talk about the dangers.
This tweet is not at all in line with the article. From the article: > Dr. Hinton said he has quit his job at Google, where he has worked for more than decade and became one of the most respected voices in the field, so he can freely speak out about the risks of A.I. A part of him, he said, now regrets his life’s work. > Dr. Hinton, often called “the Godfather of A.I.,” did not sign either of those letters and said h…
> said he did not want to publicly criticize Google or other companies until he had quit his job.
This seems to me to be the only line in the article that is incorrect or incongruent with what he is now saying - specifically the use of “Google”. It’s about ~10 paragraphs in on a ~20 paragraph article (I’m eyeballing).
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#85Left or let go?
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#86Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#87After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly. Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
Yeah I don't want to be unfair or unkind, but his responses in this article seem to reflect rather poorly on his character. The thought process seems to be something like:
"There was an opportunity for someone to gain notoriety and money at a profound cost to the human race. Someone was going to do it. I don't actually feel bad about being the one to benefit, but it is fashionable to pretend to have a conscience about such things."
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#88After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly. Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
I have this same question about the (apparently many) AI researchers who believe it poses significant risks to humanity, yet still push forward developing it as fast as they can.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#89After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly. Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
Yeah I don't want to be unfair or unkind, but his responses in this article seem to reflect rather poorly on his character. The thought process seems to be something like: "There was an opportunity for someone to gain notoriety and money at a profound cost to the human race. Someone was going to do it. I don't actually feel bad about being the one to benefit, but it is fashionable to pretend to have a conscience abou…
Isn't it true of everything though? Explosives, airplanes, electricity, computers - all double edged swords that have both greatly benefited humanity and caused great harm (with the potential for a lot more of both).
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, all the governments would LOVE this! I'll take my chances with AI fake posts. At least I can just ignore them.
> At least I can just ignore them But how will you be able to do that if they can't be distinguished from genuine photos/videos/posts ? I think we're already at that point for photos and text, and video is coming along incredibly fast - give it another year perhaps.
If you can't tell the difference, what's the value knowing the difference?