Not interested in any PR crap from scummy corporations angling to capture the regulators.
Statement on AI Risk
21–30 of 964 posts
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EAs put it above climate change
It is coming before climate change. No matter which group "put it" reality doesn't care. Humanity will not get extinct in the next 10 years by climate but many AI scientists think there is a chance this happens with AI.
I didn’t mean “EA = bad” to be clear.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#23Slightly underwhelming a statement, but surely that's just me.
It seems to be a PR related statement. For example, OpenAI's Sam Altman has signed it but is as far as I can understand very resistant to actual measures to deal with possible risks.
I don't think that's a fair assessment. He favors government oversight and licensing. Arguably, that would entrench companies with deep pockets, but it's also a totally reasonable idea.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#24The top priority is to create awareness IMHO. AI can only be as destructive as the users let it.
From my small sample size, it seems people believe in AI too much. Especially kids.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#25Well AI is here. We need to live with it. Change our economic systems to a socialist approach.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#26This is way better than the open letter. It's much clearer and much more concise, and, maybe most importantly, it simply raises awareness rather than advocating for any particular solution. The goal appears to have been to make a statement that's non-obvious (to society at large) yet also can achieve agreement among many AI notables. (Not every AI notable agrees though--for example, LeCun did not sign, and I expect t…
> it simply raises awareness
I don't think it simply raises awareness - it's a biased statement. Personally, I don't think the advocated event is likely to happen. It feels a bit like the current trans panic in the US: you can 'raise awareness' of trans people doing this or that imagined bad thing, and then use that panic to push your own agenda. In OpenAI's case, they seem to push for having themselves be in control of AI, which goes counter to what, for example, the EU is pushing for.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#27I have yet to see a solution for “AI safety” that doesn’t involve ceding control of our most powerful models to a small handful of corporations. It’s hard to take these safety concerns seriously when the organizations blowing the whistle are simultaneously positioning themselves to capture the majority of the value.
We don’t really have a good solution, I guess that’s why we need more research into it
Companies might argue that giving them control might help but I don’t think most individuals working on it think that will work
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#28I really thought there would be a statement detailing what the risks are but this seems more like a soundbite to be consumed on TV. Pretty disappointing.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#29Can't take this seriously as long they still keep offering commercial AI services while improving the existing models they already have. (I'm not in favor of just stopping AI development and even if people claimed to stop, they probably wouldn't.)
It's like people carrying torches warning about the risks of fire.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#30I really thought there would be a statement detailing what the risks are but this seems more like a soundbite to be consumed on TV. Pretty disappointing.
So far the examples I've heard are: humans will ask AI to help humans solve human issues and the AI will say humans are the issue and therefore mystically destroy us somehow. Or, AI will be inherently interested in being the primary controller of earth and so destroy all humans. Or, AI will for reasons be inherently misaligned with human values. Andrej Karpathy Said it will fire nukes on us. Elon said pen is mightier than the sword and civil war is inevitable.