Statement on AI Risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#471

Post by DonaldPShimoda » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #391

AlexandrB wrote: post #303

This reeks of marketing and a push for early regulatory capture. We already know how Sam Altman thinks AI risk should be mitigated - namely by giving OpenAI more market power. If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies. Instead we get some nonsense about licensing.

> If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies Isn’t this to some degree exactly what all of these warnings about risk are leading to? And unlike nuclear weapons, there are massive monetary incentives that are directly at odds with behaving safely, and use cases that involve more than…

> It seems problematic to conclude there is no real risk purely on the basis of how software companies act.

That is not the only basis. Another is the fact their lines of reasoning are literal fantasy. The signatories of this "statement" are steeped in histories of grossly misrepresenting and overstating the capabilities and details of modern AI platforms. They pretend to the masses that generative text tools like ChatGPT are "nearly sentient" and show "emergent properties", but this is patently false. Their whole schtick is generating FUD and/or excitement (depending on each individual of the audience's proclivity) so that they can secure funding. It's immoral snake oil of the highest order.

What's problematic here is the people who not only entertain but encourage and defend these disingenuous anthropomorphic fantasies.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#472

Post by logicchains » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

kalkin wrote: post #211

b3nji wrote: post #77

Nonsense, the industry giants are just trying to scare the law makers to license the technology. Effectively, cutting out everyone else. Remember the Google note circulating saying "they have no moat", this is their moat. They have to protect their investment, we don't want people running this willy nilly for next to no cost on their own devices, God forbid!

This could be Google's motivation (although note that Google is not actually the market leader right now) but the risk could still be real. Most of the signatories are academics, for one thing, including two who won Turing awards for ML work and another who is the co-author of the standard AI textbook (at least when I was in school). You can be cynical about corporate motives and still worried. I personally am worrie…

[flagged]

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#473

Post by duvenaud » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #442

duvenaud wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, are you claiming that it's impossible for a machine to invent anything that a human could? Right now a large chunk of humanity's top talent and capital are working on exactly this problem. As for your second point, human cities also require a lot of infrastructure to keep running - I'm not sure what you're arguing here. As for your third point - would a horse or chimpanzee feel that "we" were unbeatable in phy…

Yeah, I think most animals have every right to fear us more now that we have guns. Just like Id fear a chimp more if he was carrying a machine gun. My argument is that if we're looking for things AI can't to, building a home for itself is precisely one of those things, because they require so much infra. No amount of AI banding together is going to magically create a data center with all the required (physical) suppo…

Sorry, my gun analogy was unclear. I meant that, just because some agents on a planet have an ability, doesn't mean that everyone on that planet benefits.

I agree that we probably won't see human extinction before robotics gets much better, and that robot factories will require lots of infrastructure. But I claim that robotics + automated infrastructure will eventually get good enough that they don't need humans in the loop. In the meantime, humans can still become mostly disempowered in the same way that e.g. North Koreans citizens are.

Again I agree that this all might be a ways away, but I'm trying to reason about what the stable equilibria of the future are, not about what current capabilities are.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#474

Post by the8472 » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

SanderNL wrote: post #362

sebzim4500 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use Eliezer's analogy, this is like arguing about which move Stockfish would play to beat you in chess. If we're arguing about whether you can beat Stockfish, I will not be able to tell you the exact moves it will play but I am entirely justified in predicting that you will lose. Obviously we can imagine concrete ways a superintelligence might kill us all (engineer a virus, hack nuclear weapons, misinformation cam…

I understand but agentic/learning general intelligence has not been shown to exist, except ourselves. I’d say this is like worrying about deadly quantum laser weapons that will consume the planet when we are still in the AK47 phase. Edit: it could still be true though. I guess I like some more handholding and pre-chewing before giving governments and large corporations more ropes.

The difference to doomsday weapons is that we can build the weapons first and then worry about using them. With an AGI building one alone might be sufficient. It could become smart enough to unbox itself during a training run.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#475

Post by duvenaud » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #384

duvenaud wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

>What abilities do humans have that AIs will never have? I think the question is what abilities and level of organisation machines would have to acquire in order to outcompete entire human societies in the quest for power. That's a far higher bar than outcompeting all individual humans at all cognitive tasks.

Good point. Although in some ways it's a lower bar, since agents that can control organizations can delegate most of the difficult tasks.

Most rulers don't invent their own societies from scratch, they simply co-opt existing power structures or political movements. El Chapo can run a large, powerful organization from jail.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#476

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #459

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't just dig nuclear missiles out of the ground; we used our brains and applied math to come up with them.

Exactly. While there is an argument to be made that people are the real danger, that is beyond the discussion taking place. It has already been accepted, for the sake of discussion, that the nuclear missile is the danger, not the math which developed the missile, nor the people who thought it was a good idea to use a missile. Applying AI to the missile still means the missile is the danger. Any use of AI in the scope…

You said that "AI is an application of math. It is not clear how that can be used directly to harm a body." I was trying to illustrate the case that if humans can develop harmful things, like nuclear weapons, then an AI that is as smart as a human can presumably develop similarly harmful things.

If the point you are trying to make is that an AI which secretly creates and deploys nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in order to destroy all of humanity, is not an "AI risk" because it's the weapons that do the actual harm, then... I really don't know what to say to that. Sure, I guess? Would you also say that drunk drivers are not dangerous, because the danger is the cars that they drive colliding into people's bodies, and the drunk driver is just an implementation detail?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#477

Post by jononor » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

rahmeero wrote: post #404

randomdata wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out that people hook computers to 'things' that exist in the physical world. But those physical things would be the danger, at least if you consider the nuclear missile to be the danger. It seems you are trying to go down the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line of thinking. Which is fine, but outside of the discussion taking place.

There are many relevant things that already exist in the physical world and are not currently considered dangers: ecommerce, digital payments, doordash-style delivery, cross-border remittances, remote gig work, social media fanning extreme political views, event organizing. However, these are constituent elements that could be aggregated and weaponized by a maleficent AI.

Maleficent humans are constantly trying to use these elements for their own gain, often with little to no regards to other humans (especially out groups). This happens both individually, in small groups, in large organizations and even multiple organization colluding. Both criminal, terrorist, groups at war, along with legal organizations such as exploitative companies and regressive interest organizations, et.c.. And we have tools and mechanisms in place to keep the level of abuse at bay. Why and how are these mechanisms unsuitable for protecting against AI?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#478

Post by holmesworcester » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

dopamean wrote: post #431

escape-big-tech wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If the risks were real they would just outright stop working on their AI products. This is nothing more than a PR statement

I agree that nothing about the statement makes me think the risks are real however I disagree that if the risks are real these companies would stop working on their product. I think more realistically they'd shut up about the risk and downplay it a lot. Much like the oil industry did wrt climate change going back to the 70's.

Yes, this!

It is extremely rare for companies or their senior staff to beg for regulation this far in advance of any big push by legislators or the public.

The interpretation that this is some 3-D chess on the companies' part is a huge violation of Occam's Razor.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#479

Post by aero-deck » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #379

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…

> The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same. It is hard for me to imagine a statement more out of touch with history than this. All geopolitical history from WWII forward is profoundly affected by the development of the bomb. I don't even know where to begin to argue against this. Off the top of my head: 1. What would have happened between Ja…

The whole trajectory of history would have been different if a butterfly didn't flap it's wings.

The bomb had effects, but it didn't change anything. We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control.

For a moment, stop thinking about whether bombs, AI or the printing press do or do not affect history. Ask yourself what the motivations are for thinking that they do?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#480

Post by deegles » Tue, May 30, 2023, 5:48 PM UTC

Serious question... where can I read the best summaries of the arguments in favor of "AGI will destroy humanity"? and also arguments against? I'm not convinced we can predict how it will behave.