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

321–330 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#321

Post by sebzim4500 »

randomdata wrote: post #155
camel-cdr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love to hear a plausible story of how AI will lead to human extinction that wouldn't happen with traditional non-AI tech. The proposed FOOM scenarios obviously borrow from what we already know to be possible or think it would likely be possible using current tech, given an proposed insanely more intelligent agent than us.

What would be in it for a more intelligent agent to get rid of us? We are likely useful tools and, at worst, a curious zoo oddity. We have never been content when we have caused extinction. A more intelligent agent will have greater wherewithal to avoid doing the same. 'Able to play chess'-level AI is the greater concern, allowing humans to create more unavoidable tools of war. But we've been doing that for decades,…

>We have never been content when we have caused extinction.

err what? Apparently there are 1 million species under threat of human caused extinction [1].

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/1-million-species-under...

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#322

Post by ChatGTP »

dns_snek wrote: post #247
sebzim4500 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain to me why you think Max Tegmark wants this technology to be controlled by FAANG? Has his entire life been extremely in depth performance art?

I've never made any statements about, nor do I have any personal beliefs about Max Tegmark in particular.

Well people like him are on the list, so it's a bit strange you're claiming this is mostly about FAANG?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#323

Post by 1970-01-01 »

>The succinct statement below...

How does AI morph from an existential crisis in software development into a doomsday mechanism? It feels like all this noise stems from ChatGPT. And the end result is going to be a "DANGER! ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT SOFTWARE IN USE" sticker on my next iPhone.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#324

Post by ericb »

juve1996 wrote: post #316
ericb wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that it should be spelled out, but... If a superintelligence can be set on any specific task, it could be any task. - Make covid-ebola - Cause world war 3 You may have noticed that chatgpt is sort of goal-less until a human gives it a goal. Assuming nothing other than it can become superintelligent (no one seems to be arguing against that--I argue that it already is ) which is really an upgrade of capability,…

Sure, and you can set another superintelligence on another task - prevent covid ebola. See the problem with these scenarios?

Yes, I see a huge problem. Preventing damage is an order of magnitude more difficult than causing it.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#325

Post by [deleted] »

ChatGTP wrote: post #71
vegabook wrote: post #4

[Un]intended consequence: "AI is too dangerous for you little guys. Leave it to we the FAANGs" - rubber stamped with legislation.

What would Max Tegmark, Geoffrey Hinton, Yohshua Bengio (to name a few) have absolutely anything to do with FAANG ? They're completely independent AI researchers and geniuses spending their own free time on trying to warn you and others of the dangers of the technology they've created to help keep the world safer. Seems like you're taking a far too overly cynical position ?

[deleted]

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#326

Post by sebzim4500 »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #201

So the idea is that the risk is so great we need to regulate software and math and GPUs– but not so great that you need to stop working on it? These companies would be much more credible (that this wasn't just a totally transparent ploy to close the market) if they at least put their money where their mouth is and stopped working on AI.

I think that some of the signatories don't want regulation, they just want serious research into AI alignment.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#327

Post by Der_Einzige »

kalkin wrote: post #214
aero-deck wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, it got picked up, had a good argument and affected market opinion. The execs now need to respond to it. Humans also don't grasp that things can improve exponentially until they stop improving exponentially. This belief that AGI is just over the hill is sugar-water for extracting more hours from developers. The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing…

"nuclear weapons are no big deal actually" is just a wild place to get as a result of arguing against AI risk. Although I guess Eliezer Yudkowsky would agree! (On grounds that nukes won't kill literally everyone while AI will, but still.)

Nuclear weapons are uniquely good. Turns out you have to put guns to the collective temples of humanity for them to realize that pulling the trigger is a bad idea.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#328

Post by holmesworcester »

NathanFulton wrote: post #278
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Absolutely. These are the types of pragmatic, real problems we should be focusing on instead of the "risk of extinction from AI". (The statement at hand reads "mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.")

Einstein's letter to Roosevelt was written before the atomic bomb existed.

There's a point where people see a path, and they gain confidence in their intuition from the fact that other members of their field also see a path.

Einstein's letter said 'almost certain' and 'in the immediate future' but it makes sense to sound the alarm about AI earlier, both given what we know about the rate of progress of general purpose technologies and given that the AI risk, if real, is greater than the risk Einstein envisioned (total extermination as opposed to military defeat to a mass murderer.)

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#329

Post by juve1996 »

MrScruff wrote: post #188

I find it quite extraordinary how many on here are dismissing that there is any risk at all. I also find statements like Yann LeCunn's that "The most common reaction by AI researchers to these prophecies of doom is face palming." to be lacking in awareness. "Experts disagree on risk of extinction" isn't quite as reassuring as he thinks it is. The reality is, despite the opinions of the armchair quarterbacks commentin…

What's more realistic: regulatory capture and US hegemony on AI or general intelligence destroying the world in the next 20 years?

Go ahead and bet. I doubt you're putting your money on AGI.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#330

Post by a257 »

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. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it.

Inductive reasoning is in favor of their argument being possible. From observing nature, we know that a variety of intelligent species can emerge from physical phenomenon alone. Historically, the dominance of one intelligent species has contributed to the extinction of others. Given this, it can be said that AI might cause our extinction.

Post reply on HN