Live data from Hacker News

The illusion of AI’s existential risk

noemamag.com

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#81
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference between evil and indifferent if you are on the receiving end? Humanity is largely indifferent to animal welfare and animals would qualify it as evil how we treat them.

No, but I think that was exactly the point being made: that the article suggests evil would be required for existential risk, when indifferent would suffice.

It's noteworthy that even if we do see "evil" it'll just be something painted on an underlying veneer of indifference, eg. ChaosGPT.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#82
post #56
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That point is basically what the article is about.

It can't be repeated enough apparently, because people still whine on about skymesh and "but IFF the robots wake up" when the real risk is what people believe machine derived "facts" are (I quote facts because they are highly conjectural inferences from models, and often diverge from fact pretty rapidly)

>when the real risk is what people believe machine derived "facts" are

It's hard to play out a scenario where this leads to actual human extinction.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#83
This is a truly awful article. I'm mildly positive towards AI because I think people tend to react with fear and examine the risks without equivalently examining the rewards, and I think that's happening here and the rewards seem amazing. But the arguments of risk are serious and plausible and this article is just lazily dismissive of them.

> AI is not competing for resources with human beings.

A superintelligence would absolutely be competing for resources (mainly electricity and cooling) with human beings.

> Rather, we provide AI systems with their resources, from energy and raw materials to computer chips and network infrastructure.

A superintelligence will be able to convince anyone it wants to do anything for it. Even the previous President did a pretty good job at causing adulation and democracy-threatening personal loyalty from people he had not actually met in person. Imagine how amplified and personal the effect could be.

> For now, AI depends on us, and a superintelligence would presumably recognize that fact and seek to preserve humanity since we are as fundamental to AI’s existence as oxygen-producing plants are to ours. This makes the evolution of mutualism between AI and humans a far more likely outcome than competition. Moreover, the path to a fully automated economy — if that is the goal — will be long, with each major step serving as a natural checkpoint for human intervention.

The author is literally relying on us outsmarting the superintelligence (collectively, with coordination!). It doesn't sound like they've come to terms with the concept of superintelligence at all. Or with the state of human global coordination problems, come to think of it.

> AI cannot physically hunt us.

This is likely to become literally false sometime soon if it hasn't already, but even if it doesn't, the AI doesn't have to. It just has to convince another human that the human is in love with it and it wants the human to kill a bunch of people, then scale the process.

> AI’s impact on the climate is up to us.

Our own impact on the climate is up to us. Our collective decision-making is.. suboptimal.

> If we really think that superintelligent AI presents a plausible existential risk, shouldn’t we simply stop all AI research right now? Why not preemptively bomb data centers and outlaw GPUs?

You are literally linking to the person who is the most prominent voice of AI existential risk, who is seriously suggesting doing exactly that.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#84
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Convinced that we are a few years from extinction," is an exaggeration of the pessimistic/alarmed end of the spectrum of opinion. All the forecasts I've seen have the period of danger spread out over at least 20 or 30 years, and no one claims to understand the topic well enough to be able to tell whether a particular model is dangerous even if given complete freedom to examine the source code and interview the creat…

> "Convinced that we are a few years from extinction," is an exaggeration of the pessimistic/alarmed end of the spectrum of opinion. It really isn't. There are people quitting their jobs, protesting AI companies, and inducing panic attacks in children over their irrational fears: https://www.wired.com/story/pause-ai-existential-risk/

No, even the more-panicked wing is not betting the proverbial house on AI killing us within the next few years, although the possibility is there. The "don't expect to live much longer" sentiment is based on a probability horizon that extends over decades.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#85

I’m just re-reading Blindsight by Peter Watts, a novel that is amazingly prescient in — amongst other things — its predictions of this coming economic upheaval. Speaking of… one scene in the book has humans communicating with an alien that appears to have “learned” human speech by training a non-sentient LLM on human ship-to-ship transmissions, and then “fine tuned” it to achieve the desired communication goal withou…

A much more interesting set of books (I've never managed to finish Blindsight due to Watts writing) is Ian Banks' Culture series.

[dead]

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#86
post #6

AGI doesn't ever have to happen for rapid deployment of AI based systems to cause harm. Google "robodebt australia" for what happens when government uses machine derived decisions to penalise the poor.

aussie here, former dole bludger, still know people who live off the welfare system, hide their side income, and are proud of it. There was sooooo much warning for robodebt that they all made sure their taxes were clean before the first demands went out, but a few still got through. Mostly accurate, but a few dodgy ones too. Of course, as we know, it was a dragnet and the human suffering produced was excessive. Considering the depth of the corruption, it was clear the system was incapable of correcting itself, so what else is there to do? How do you get help to the people with real need when there's so many people cheating? Robodebt was big hammer approach.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#87

I don’t understand why economic disruption and human obsolescence isn’t considered an existential risk. We could end up in a world where 99.99% of people are redundant and useless cost centers for our GDP maximizing economic paradigm. In that case, you don’t need killer robots in order to push humanity towards near-extinction. The invisible hand will smite them. But don’t worry, TED Talk attendee. The obsoletariat mo…

As soon as a significant share of the population is „irrelevant“ and treated as such (read: no good welfare, …), capitalism will end quickly. „Who owns the machines that generate value“ will shift from individuals/corporations towards a public good, and Marx ultimately was right.

Yeah, but capitalists have all the guns. Not directly, but the hired guns (police, military), work for the capitalists.

In fact, if you watch The Rules for Rulers, there’s the possibility of turning the entire world into a 3rd world corrupted structure: a few people at the top enjoying the riches of full automation, a few more people with guns to protect them from the unwashed masses, and everyone else.

If democracy really comes from the fact that we need everyone’s labour to make a country, we may actually lose it as automation makes most of us economically irrelevant. We need an alternative before the window closes. If we’re lucky it won’t ever close, but to be honest I won’t bet on it.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#88

I’m just re-reading Blindsight by Peter Watts, a novel that is amazingly prescient in — amongst other things — its predictions of this coming economic upheaval. Speaking of… one scene in the book has humans communicating with an alien that appears to have “learned” human speech by training a non-sentient LLM on human ship-to-ship transmissions, and then “fine tuned” it to achieve the desired communication goal withou…

I don't like Blindsight or Echopraxia, I just get caustic misantrophic vibe from Watts' writing. The whole materialist/hyperintelligent/nonsentient thing tastes very Marxist.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#89

This is a truly awful article. I'm mildly positive towards AI because I think people tend to react with fear and examine the risks without equivalently examining the rewards, and I think that's happening here and the rewards seem amazing. But the arguments of risk are serious and plausible and this article is just lazily dismissive of them. > AI is not competing for resources with human beings. A superintelligence wo…

>This is likely to become literally false sometime soon if it hasn't already, but even if it doesn't, the AI doesn't have to. It just has to convince another human that the human is in love with it and it wants the human to kill a bunch of people, then scale the process.

I'm stunned at the number of people who try to make this argument. The operators of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines never had to leave their broadcast studio. Goebbels never had to do anything but get in front of a microphone or a typewriter. Still, millions were violently killed. We bicker about LLMs' ability to write C code that will compile, but their best abilities are to gaslight, emotionally manipulate, lie and create FUD.

Re: The illusion of AI’s existential risk

#90

I’m just re-reading Blindsight by Peter Watts, a novel that is amazingly prescient in — amongst other things — its predictions of this coming economic upheaval. Speaking of… one scene in the book has humans communicating with an alien that appears to have “learned” human speech by training a non-sentient LLM on human ship-to-ship transmissions, and then “fine tuned” it to achieve the desired communication goal withou…

A much more interesting set of books (I've never managed to finish Blindsight due to Watts writing) is Ian Banks' Culture series.

I rate Iain M Banks as my favourite author of all time, but the AIs in his book have a very different "flavour" compared to the intelligent-but-not-sentient aliens and AIs in Blindsight.

An interesting aspect of the Culture Minds is that they're described as hybrids of human-like / neural-net / organic intelligence and also direct numerical compute and storage capacity. They can both "think" and "compute", something few if any current AI models attempt.

A well-known limitation of current LLMs like ChatGPT is that they are atrocious at even basic arithmetic, whereas a $2 pocket calculator from the 1980s outperforms them in this respect!

I'd love to see an attempt at a hybrid architecture where the neurons are also connected to a numeric compute component of the architecture.

Think of parsing an expression such as:

    let foo = 5 + 10
ChatGPT parses this as:

    "let", " foo", " =", " 5", " +", " 10"
Essentially, its lexer produces a series of token IDs that don't contain the numeric values of "5" and "10":

    [1309, 22944, 796, 642, 1343, 838]
Programming language lexers would parse that as:

    [LET, ID("foo"), EQ, NUM(5), PLUS, NUM(10)]
In other words, lexer tokens in programming languages can carry baggage such as numeric values.

What if we lifted this restriction and made an AI embedding where every token had both an ID and a value? For literal text just set the ID to NaN or whatever.

E.g.: assume that "integer constant" is ID 1000, then an LLM might be fed this input instead:

    [1309, 22944, 796, 1000, 1343, 1000]
    [ NaN,   NaN, NaN,    5,  NaN,   10]
Then the model could be wired up such that the additional tensor dimension can be sent to both the neural net or a direct compute block that does various kinds of maths, such as adding all inputs, multiplying all inputs, etc...

Could be interesting...

Post reply on HN