161–170 of 964 posts
Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
That might be why Sam Altman signed it but why do you think that all the academics did so as well. Do you think he just bribed them all or something?
Just because you can do fancy math doesn't mean you understand how to play the game.
Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
That might be why Sam Altman signed it but why do you think that all the academics did so as well. Do you think he just bribed them all or something?
Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
That might be why Sam Altman signed it but why do you think that all the academics did so as well. Do you think he just bribed them all or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am saying there is no distinction. If AI is a risk to humanity, then the internet in general must be as well.
So if there is no distinction, by your own words, can you take yourself seriously or not? That is, by your own words, both AI and the Internet either pose a risk or they both do not; 'there is no distinction.'
I signed the letter. At some point, humans are going to be outcompeted by AI at basically every important job. At that point, how are we going to maintain political power in the long run? Humanity is going to be like an out-of-touch old person on the internet - we'll either have to delegate everything important (which is risky), or eventually get scammed or extorted out of all our resources and influence.
Am I reading this right? "Please stop us from building this!"
Basically none of these are new, and none will directly be the “extinction” of the human race, but AI very plausibly could intensify them to a scale and pace that human society cannot handle, and their knock on effects lead to what amounts to a car-crash in slow motion.
It is almost certainly the case that Altman and the like are simultaneously entrenching themselves as the only ones who get to play ball, but that doesn’t mean the threats do not exist. And while I’m sure many on HackerNews tend to be more of the libertarian, move fast and break things mindset, I personally would prefer if society would move to a more proactive, fire-prevention method of operation over the current reactive, fire extinguishing one, at least where this is concerned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn’t work either. The consequence of extinction is infinity (to humans). Likelihood * infinity = infinity. So by hand-waving at a catastrophic sci-fi scenario they can demand we heed their demands, whatever that is.
At the extremes you get into the territory of Pascal's Mugging [1]. Which is a delightfully simple example of how our simple methods of stating goals quickly goes wrong 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging
[Robert Miles AI Safety]
LLMs are just text prediction. I don't see the linear path from LLM to AGI. Was there similar hysteria when the calculator or PC first came out?
In a way it's actually a bit dystopian that the "everyone will be put out of work" predictions never come true, because it means we never get that promised age of leisure. Here we are with something like a hundred thousand times the productivity of a medieval peasant working as much or more than a medieval peasant. The hedonic treadmill and the bullshit job creating effects of commerce and bureaucracy eat all our productivity gains.
The economy is actually a red queen's race: