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

231–240 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#231

Post by duvenaud »

Infernal wrote: post #227
duvenaud wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's one of my concrete worries: 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 influenc…

“Humans are going to be outcompeted by AI” is the concrete bit as best I can tell. Historically humans are not outcompeted by new tools, but humans using old tools are outcompeted by humans using new tools. It’s not “all humans vs the new tool”, as the tool has no agency. If you meant “humans using old tools get outcompeted by humans using AI”, then I agree but I don’t see it any differently than previous efficiency…

I see what you mean - for a while, the best chess was played by humans aided by chess engines. But that era has passed, and now having a human trying to aid the best chess engines just results in worse chess (or the same, if the human does nothing).

But whether there a few humans in the loop doesn't change the likely outcomes, if their actions are constrained by competition.

What abilities do humans have that AIs will never have?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#233

Post by berkeleyjunk »

quicklime wrote: post #45
berkeleyjunk wrote: post #28

I 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.

It’s not on the same page as the signatories but they do have this: https://www.safe.ai/ai-risk

Thank you! That page certainly seems more concrete and useful.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#235

Post by olalonde »

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 person to follow on real AI safety is Emily M. Bender (professor of computer linguistics at University of Washington): https://mstdn.social/@emilymbender@dair-community.social

- Pronouns

- "AI bros"

- "mansplaining"

- "extinction from capitalism"

- "white supremacy"

- "one old white guy" (referring to Geoffrey Hinton)

Yeah... I think I will pass.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#237

Post by SpaceManNabs »

skepticATX wrote: post #72
apsec112 wrote: post #51

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 do…

But what argument is there to refute? It feels like Aquinas “proving” God’s existence by stating that it is self evident. They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it. So again, what can be refuted?

> They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist.

There are judges using automated decision systems to excuse away decisions that send people back to jail for recidivism purposes. These systems are just enforcing societal biases at scale. It is clear that we are ready to acquiesce control to AI systems without much care to any extra ethical considerations.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#240

Post by qayxc »

SanderNL wrote: post #114

I'm not sure they can keep claiming this without becoming concrete about it. Nuclear weapons are not nebulous, vague threats of diffuse nature. They literally burn the living flesh right off the face of the earth and they do it dramatically. There is very little to argue about except "how" are we going to contain it, not "why". In this case I truly don't know "why". What fundamental risks are there? Dramatic, loud, l…

I mostly agree - too vague, no substance.

Regulations are OK IMHO, as long as they're targeting monopolies and don't use a shotgun-approach targeting every single product that has "AI" in the name.

Post reply on HN