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

Statement on AI Risk

safe.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#51

Post by apsec112 »

A lot of the responses to this seem like Bulverism, ie., trying to refute an argument by psychoanalyzing the people who argue it:

"Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant—but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly." - CS Lewis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#52

Post by arek_nawo »

All the concern and regulatory talk around AI seems like it's directed not towards AI risk (that's not even a thing right now) rather than controlling access to this evolving technology.

The not-so-open Open AI and all their AI regulation proposals, no matter how phrased, will eventually limit access to AI to big tech and those with deep enough pockets.

But of course, it's all to mitigate AI risk that's looming over us, especially with all the growing open-source projects. Only in proper hands of big tech will we be safe. :)

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#53

Post by vesinisa »

skepticATX wrote: post #37

I suspect that in 5 years we’re going to look back and wonder how we all fell into mass hysteria over language models. This is the same song and dance from the usual existential risk suspects, who (I’m sure just coincidentally) also have a vested interest in convincing you that their products are extremely powerful.

Yeah, like I fail to see how would an AI even cause human extinction? Through some Terminator style man-robot warfare? But the only orgnizations that would seem capable of building such killer robots are governments that already possess the capacity to extinguish the entire human race with thermonuclear weapons - and at a considerably lower R&D budget for that end. It seems like hysteria / clever marketing for AI products to me.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#54

Post by wongarsu »

shafyy wrote: post #32

The issue I take with these kind of "AI safety" organizations is that they focus on the wrong aspects of AI safety. Specifically, they run this narrative that AI will make us humans go extinct. This is not a real risk today. Real risks are more in the category of systemic racism and sexism, deep fakes, over reliance on AI etc. But of course, "AI will humans extinct" is much sexier and collects clicks. Therefore, the…

A good way to categorize risk is look at both likelihood and severity of consequences. The most visible issues today (racism, deep fakes, over reliance) are almost certain to occur, but also for the most part have relatively minor consequences (mostly making things that are already happening worse). "Advanced AI will make humans extinct" is much less likely but has catastrophic consequences. Focusing on the catastrophic risks isn't unreasonable, especially since society at large seem to already handle the more frequently occurring risks (the EU's AI Act addresses many of them).

And of course research into one of them benefits the other, so the categories aren't mutually exclusive.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#55

Post by sebzim4500 »

a_bonobo wrote: post #26
blueblimp wrote: post #18

This 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…

In what sense is this a 'biased statement' exactly?

If a dozen of the top climate scientists put out a statement saying that fighting climate change should be a serious priority (even if they can't agree on one easy solution) would that also be 'biased'?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#56

Post by Mizza »

Can anybody who really believes this apocalyptic stuff send me in the direction of a convincing _argument_ that this is actually a concern?

I'm willing to listen, but I haven't read anything that tries to actually convince the reader of the worry, rather than appealing to their authority as "experts" - ie, the well funded.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#57

Post by sebzim4500 »

skepticATX wrote: post #37

I suspect that in 5 years we’re going to look back and wonder how we all fell into mass hysteria over language models. This is the same song and dance from the usual existential risk suspects, who (I’m sure just coincidentally) also have a vested interest in convincing you that their products are extremely powerful.

Who in that list are the 'usual existential risk suspects'?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#58

Post by patrec »

valine wrote: post #17

I 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.

> It’s hard to take these safety concerns seriously

I don't get this mindset at all. How can it not be obvious to you that AI is an uniquely powerful and thus uniquely dangerous technology?

It's like saying nuclear missiles can't possibly be dangerous and nuclear arms reduction and non-proliferation treaties were a scam, because the US, China and the Soviet Union had positioned themselves to capture the majority of the strategic value nukes bring.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#59

Post by a_bonobo »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #55
a_bonobo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In what sense is this a 'biased statement' exactly? If a dozen of the top climate scientists put out a statement saying that fighting climate change should be a serious priority (even if they can't agree on one easy solution) would that also be 'biased'?

Climate change is a generally accepted phenomenon.

Extinction risk due to AI is not a generally accepted phenomenon.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#60

Post by sebzim4500 »

valine wrote: post #17

I 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.

General research into AI alignment does not require that those models are controlled by few corporations. On the contrary, the research would be easier with freely available very capable models.

This is only helpful in that a superintelligence well aligned to make Sam Altman money is preferable to a superintelligence badly aligned that ends up killing humanity.

It is fully possible that a well aligned (with its creators) superintelligence is still a net negative for humanity.

Post reply on HN