There are a bunch of physicists signed up on there; (e.g. Martin Rees) - they don't seem relevant to it at all. There's been a long history of famous physicists weighing in on entirely unrelated things.
Check only the "AI scientists" checkbox then.
Statement on AI Risk
101–110 of 964 posts
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#102Pushing hard to convince senile lawmakers that only a select few should be allowed to multiply them matrices?
[flagged]
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#103Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#104and that's why me, Sam Altman, is the only guy that can save you all ! so get in line and act accordingly
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#105and that's why me, Sam Altman, is the only guy that can save you all ! so get in line and act accordingly
Pathetic. He is beclowning himself.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#106The 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…
If you were to take a look at the list of signatories on safe.ai, that's basically everyone who is everyone that works on building AI, what could Emily B Bender a professor of computer linguistics possibly add to the conversation and how would she be able to talk more about the "real AI safety" than any of those people? Edit: Sorry if it sounds arrogant, I don't mean Emily wouldn't have anything to add, but not sure…
She's a professor of computer linguistics; it's literally her field that's being discussed.
The list of signatories includes people with far less relevant qualifications, and significantly greater profit motive.
She's an informed party who doesn't stand to profit; we should listen to her a lot more readily than others.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#107The 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…
The elite class in your country views AI as a risk to their status as elites, not an actual existential threat to humanity. They are just lying to you, as usual. That is what our current crop of globalist, free-trade, open-borders elites do. Imagine if you had an AI companion that instantly identified pilpul in every piece of media you consumed: voice, text, whatever. It highlighted it for you. What if you had an AI…
The Elite class is just as apt to consolidate power with AI and rule the entire world with it. If you have a super duper AI in your pocket looking at the data around you, then they a super super super duper duper duper AI looking at every bit of data from every corner of the world they can feed the thing giving themselves power and control you couldn't even begin to imagine.
Falling into conspiratorial thinking on a single dimension without even considering all the different factors that could change belies ignorance. Yes, AI is set up to upend the elites status, but is just as apt to upset your status of being able to afford food and a house and meaningful work.
> not simply enrich a criminal cabal of globalist elites that treat you like cattle?
There is a different problem here... And that is humankind has made tools capable of concentrating massive amounts of power well before we solved human greed. Any system you make that's powerful has to overcome greedy power seeking hyper-optimizers. If I could somehow hit a button and Thanos away the current elites, then another group of powerseekers would just claim that status. It is an inane human behavior.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#108> risk of extinction from AI That's a pretty strong statement. Extinction of humanity, no less. I don't get why so many experts (lots of them aren't crackpots) signed this.
Given risk is probability * damage, and the damage is enormous, the risk can be high even if the probability is fairly low.
This fallacy is also known as Pascal's wager:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
But this argument got billions of people to believe in the concept of hell so i expect it to work again to convince people to believe in AI doomsday.
Re: Statement on AI Risk
#109Re: Statement on AI Risk
#110I 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'?
Doomsday prepper Sam Altman[1], for one.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...