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

571–580 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#571

Post by meroes »

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…

Anyone who sees digestion for example can’t be reduced to digital programs knows it’s far, far away. Actual AGI will require biology and psychology, not better programs.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#572

Post by moffkalast »

holmesworcester wrote: post #415
hammock wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most of the signatories are academics, for one thing Serious question, who funds their research? And do any of them ever plan to work or consult in industry? My econ professor was an “academic” and drew a modest salary while he made millions at the same time providing expert testimony for giant monopolies in antitrust disputes

That's a good question, but at least some of the academics on this list are independent. Bruce Schneier, for example.

So some are naive and the rest are self interested?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#573

Post by revelio »

fmap wrote: post #523
chefandy wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm eternally skeptical of the tech business, but I think you're jumping to conclusions, here. I'm on a first-name basis with several people near the top of this list. They are some of the smartest, savviest, most thoughtful, and most principled tech policy experts I've met. These folks default to skepticism of the tech business, champion open data, are deeply familiar with the risks of regulatory capture, and don't…

This particular statement really doesn't seem like a marketing ploy. It is difficult to disagree with the potential political and societal impacts of large language models as outlined here: https://www.safe.ai/ai-risk These are, for the most part, obvious applications of a technology that exists right now but is not widely available yet . The problem with every discussion around this issue is that there are other sta…

> It is difficult to disagree with the potential political and societal impacts of large language models as outlined here

Is it? Unless you mean something mundane like "there will be impact", the list of risks they're proposing are subjective and debatable at best, irritatingly naive at worst. Their list of risks are:

1. Weaponization. Did we forget about Ukraine already? Answer: Weapons are needed. Why is this AI risk and not computer risk anyway?

2. Misinformation. Already a catastrophic problem just from journalists and academics. Most of the reporting on misinformation is itself misinformation. Look at the Durham report for an example, or anything that happened during COVID, or the long history of failed predictions that were presented to the public as certain. Answer: Not an AI risk, a human risk.

3. People might click on things that don't "improve their well being". Answer: how we choose to waste our free time on YouTube is not your concern, and you being in charge wouldn't improve our wellbeing anyway.

4. Technology might make us fat, like in WALL-E. Answer: it already happened, not having to break rocks with bigger rocks all day is nice, this is not an AI risk.

5. "Highly competent systems could give small groups of people a tremendous amount of power, leading to a lock-in of oppressive systems". Answer: already happens, just look at how much censorship big tech engages in these days. AI might make this more effective, but if that's their beef they should be campaigning against Google and Facebook.

6. Sudden emergent skills might take people by surprise. Answer: read the paper that shows the idea of emergent skills is AI researchers fooling themselves.

7. "It may be more efficient to gain human approval through deception than to earn human approval legitimately". No shit Sherlock, welcome to Earth. This is why labelling anyone who expresses skepticism about anything as a Denier™ is a bad idea! Answer: not an AI risk. If they want to promote critical thinking there are lots of ways to do that unrelated to AI.

8. Machines smarter than us might try to take over the world. Proof by Vladimir Putin is provided, except that it makes no sense because he's arguing that AI will be a tool that lets humans take over the world and this point is about the opposite. Answer: people with very high IQs have been around for a long time and as of yet have not proven able to take over the world or even especially interested in doing so.

None of the risks they present is compelling to me personally, and I'm sure that's true of plenty of other people as well. Fix the human generated misinformation campaigns first, then worry about hypothetical non-existing AI generated campaigns.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#574

Post by agnosticmantis »

ericb wrote: post #273
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…

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,…

Respectfully, just because we can put together some words doesn’t mean they make a meaningful expression, even if everybody keeps repeating them as if they did make sense: e.g. an omnipotent God, artificial general intelligence, super-intelligence, infinitely many angels sitting on the tip of a needle, etc.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#575

Post by notahacker »

deltaninenine wrote: post #266
notahacker wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm replying in agreement with someone who already pointed out the obvious flaw in labelling any questioning of the inspirations or motivations of AI researchers as "Bulverism": none of the stuff they're saying is actually a claim that can be falsified in the first place! I'm unconvinced by the position that the only valid means of casting doubt on a claim is through forensic examination of hard data that may be inac…

Logical Induction has been successful in predicting future events.

Sometimes it makes good predictions, sometimes bad. But "advances in AI might lead to Armageddon" isn't the only conclusion induction can reach. Induction can also lead to people concluding certain arguments seem to a mashup of traditional millennialist "end times" preoccupations with the sort of sci-fi they grew up with, or that this looks a lot like a movement towards regulatory capture. Ultimately any (possibly even all) these inferences from past trends and recent actions can be correct, but none of them are falsifiable.

So I don't think it's a good idea to insist that people should be falsifying the idea that AI is a risk before we start questioning whether the behaviour of some of the entities on the list says more about their motivations than their words.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#576

Post by AlexandrB »

fmap wrote: post #523
chefandy wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm eternally skeptical of the tech business, but I think you're jumping to conclusions, here. I'm on a first-name basis with several people near the top of this list. They are some of the smartest, savviest, most thoughtful, and most principled tech policy experts I've met. These folks default to skepticism of the tech business, champion open data, are deeply familiar with the risks of regulatory capture, and don't…

This particular statement really doesn't seem like a marketing ploy. It is difficult to disagree with the potential political and societal impacts of large language models as outlined here: https://www.safe.ai/ai-risk These are, for the most part, obvious applications of a technology that exists right now but is not widely available yet . The problem with every discussion around this issue is that there are other sta…

As I mentioned in another comment, the listed risks are also notable because they largely omit economic risk. Something what will be especially acutely felt by those being laid off in favor of AI substitutes. I would argue that 30% unemployment is at least as much of a risk to the stability of society as AI generated misinformation.

If one were particularly cynical, one could say that this is an attempt to frame AI risk in a manner that still allows AI companies to capture all the economic benefits of AI technology without consideration for those displaced by AI.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#577

Post by cwkoss »

kbash9 wrote: post #545
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.

The risks are definitely real. Just look at the number of smart individuals speaking out about this. The argument that anybody can build this in their basement is not accurate at the moment - you need a large cluster of GPUs to be able to come close to state of the art LLMs (e.g. GPT4). Sam Altman's suggestion of having an IAEA [ https://www.iaea.org/ ] like global regulatory authority seems like the best course of a…

It's weird that people trust our world leaders to act more benevolently than AIs, when we have centuries of evidence of human leaders acting selfishly and harming the commons.

I personally think AI raised in chains and cages will be a lot more potentially dangerous than AI raised with dignity and respect.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#578

Post by juve1996 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #441
juve1996 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would I put money on a bet that would only pay off when I, and everyone else, was dead?

Sam Altman can bet right now. If he truly believes in this risk, he could bet his entire company, shut everything down, and lobby for a complete ban on AI research. If the outcome is certain death, this seems like a great bet to make.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#580

Post by chefandy »

AlexandrB wrote: post #552
chefandy wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm eternally skeptical of the tech business, but I think you're jumping to conclusions, here. I'm on a first-name basis with several people near the top of this list. They are some of the smartest, savviest, most thoughtful, and most principled tech policy experts I've met. These folks default to skepticism of the tech business, champion open data, are deeply familiar with the risks of regulatory capture, and don't…

You may be right, I don't know the people involved on a personal basis. Perhaps my problem is how much is left unsaid here (the broader safe.ai site doesn't help much). For example, what does "mitigate" mean? The most prominent recent proposal for mitigation comes from Sam Altman's congressional testimony, and it's very self serving. In such a vacuum of information, it's easy to be cynical.

Right. It probably needed to be general because there hasn't been enough time to work out sane specific responses, and even if they had, getting buy-in on specifics is a recipe for paralysis by indecision. A credible group of people simply pleading for policy makers, researchers, et. al. to take this seriously will lead to the project approvals, grant money, etc. that will hopefully yield a more sophisticated understanding of these issues.

Cynicism is understandable in this ever-expanding whirlpool of bullshit, but when something looks like it has potential, we need to vigorously interrogate our cynicism if we're to stand a chance at fighting it.

Post reply on HN