White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

Post by hgsgm » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 2:54 PM UTC

adamsmith143 wrote: post #24

asimpleusecase wrote: post #2

Looks like the companies all agreed to do what they were doing already. Nothing about training data transparency , nothing about a common definition of risk or standards for compliance. The public have all heard “AI is going to destroy humanity” but those statements have been short on specifics. I have been asked by many people to explain how AI could kill us all. How about some clarity for common people.

>I have been asked by many people to explain how AI could kill us all. How about some clarity for common people. There are countless resources to find this stuff out. To be clear there may not be a level at which common people understand why e.g. Fission Chain Reactions are dangerous but they can grok why a giant bomb that spreads radiation is bad. For Starters: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-r…

Post by hgsgm » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

localplume wrote: post #10

asimpleusecase wrote: post #2

Looks like the companies all agreed to do what they were doing already. Nothing about training data transparency , nothing about a common definition of risk or standards for compliance. The public have all heard “AI is going to destroy humanity” but those statements have been short on specifics. I have been asked by many people to explain how AI could kill us all. How about some clarity for common people.

if you think about it, its actual insanity. The fears are all from science fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality. There are legitimate concerns about the unethical mass harvesting of data but if you think about "AI safety" vs something like vehicular safety or spacecraft safety its kind of nuts, because the latter are grounded in reality and have formal specifications which need to be met. But AI safety is…

Post by hgsgm » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

localplume wrote: post #10

asimpleusecase wrote: post #2

Looks like the companies all agreed to do what they were doing already. Nothing about training data transparency , nothing about a common definition of risk or standards for compliance. The public have all heard “AI is going to destroy humanity” but those statements have been short on specifics. I have been asked by many people to explain how AI could kill us all. How about some clarity for common people.

if you think about it, its actual insanity. The fears are all from science fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality. There are legitimate concerns about the unethical mass harvesting of data but if you think about "AI safety" vs something like vehicular safety or spacecraft safety its kind of nuts, because the latter are grounded in reality and have formal specifications which need to be met. But AI safety is…

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #48

wpietri wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure. AI is a marketing term. But in some sense, so it "tech". The paperclip is a highly evolved technology, for example, [1], but working on those doesn't mean you work "in tech". Tech meant something like, "the new stuff that is impacting our lives but we don't know how to handle". So a CTO's job generally doesn't include the paperclips, the copiers, or the company cars, however technological they are. And as w…

I think a good definition of AI might be things that can’t be done (or at least we don’t know how to do them) with traditional deterministic programming techniques (that is, humans write code that directly tells the computer what to do). Things like traditional chess programs (i.e., those that don't use neural networks/ML) are maybe a borderline case, as while they are just tree search with a bunch of human-tuned eva…

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 3:06 PM UTC

hgsgm wrote: post #51

roenxi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is likely to be similar to humans vs. other primates. Step 1 is establish a position of complete military dominance through superior communication, resource utilisation and technology. Step 2 is wipe out anyone who competes for resources. Basically the argument is if anyone, anywhere creates an AI that has the same basic drives as a human (preserve yourself, replicate, preserve things that look like you) it'll sta…

AI is really bad at plugging itself in after it is unplugged.