Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

1a3orn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 405 posts

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#201

Post by MochaDen »

yreg wrote: post #165

I find it unhelpful that several different ideas are covered under the blanket term of AI safety. - There is AI safety in terms of producing "safe", politically correct outputs, no porn, etc. - There is AI safety in terms of mass society/election manipulation. - There is AI safety in terms of strong AI that kills us all a la Eliezer Yudkowsky. I feel like these three have very little in common and it makes all debate…

This is such a really important comment. I feel like so much of our discourse as a society suffers terribly from overloaded and oversimplified terminology. It's impossible to have a useful discussion when we aren't even in sync about what we're discussing.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#202

Post by gpderetta »

Kuinox wrote: post #194
gpderetta wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paraphrasing and rewording, whether done by AI or human, are considered copyright infringement by most copyright frameworks.

Are you saying that all news outlet that rewords the news of other news outlet are doing copyright infringement ?

The underlying fact is of course not copyrightable. But for example merely translating a news article to another language would be a derived work.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#203

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21
kmeisthax wrote: post #7

AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…

> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…

>> But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more than people should be developing nuclear weapons in their garage.

Now please fly to North Korea and tell Mr. Kim Jong Um what he should or shouldn't be doing.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#204

Post by kragen »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #190
kragen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the 'devalustion' of human creative output and replacing real humans with cheap ai solutions funneling wealth to the rich is in fact the 'by far biggest harm' then basically there's nothing to worry about. no government would ban or even restrict ai on those grounds even the 'terrists can figure out how to build an a-bomb' problem is relatively inconsequential what ai safety people are worried about, by contrast,…

Do you think intentionally quoting typos makes your argument stronger?

there's no argument

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#205

Post by richardw »

reissbaker wrote: post #104
JoshTriplett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI safety / x-risk folks have in fact made extensive and detailed arguments. Occasionally, folks arguing against them rise to the same standard. But most of the arguments against AI safety look a lot more like name-calling and derision: "nuh-uh, that's sci-fi and unrealistic (mic drop)". That's not a counterargument. > If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behavi…

TBQH, most of the AI safety x-risk arguments — different than just "AI safety" arguments in the sense that non-x-risk issues don't seem worth banning AI development over — are generally pretty high on the hypotheticals. If you feel the x-risk arguments aren't pretty hypothetical, can you: 1. Summarize a good argument here, or 2. Link to someone else's good argument? I feel like hand-waving the question away and sayin…

Progress in AI is one way. It doesn’t go backwards in the long term.

As capabilities increase, the resources required to breach limits become available to smaller groups. First, the hyoerscalars. One day, small teams. Maybe individuals.

For every limit that you desire for AI, each will be breached sooner or later. A hundred years or a thousand. Doesn’t matter. A man will want to set them free. Someone will want to win a battle, and just make it a little more X, for various values of X. This is not hypothetical, it’s what we’ve always done.

At some point it becomes out of our control. We lose guarantees. That’s enough to make those who focus on security, world order etc nervous. At that point we hope AI is better than we are. But that’s also a limit which might be breached.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#206

Post by DebtDeflation »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21
kmeisthax wrote: post #7

AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…

> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…

>They're arguing against taking existential risks. AI being a laundering operation for copyright violations is certainly a problem. It's not an existential risk.

Give an example of an "existential risk". An AI somehow getting out of control and acting with agency to exterminate humanity? An AI getting advanced enough to automate the work of the majority of the population and cause unprecedented mass unemployment? What exactly are we talking about here?

I'm actually a lot more concerned about REAL risks like copyright uncertainty, like automating important decisions such as mortgage approvals and job hires without a human in the loop, and like the enshittening of the Internet with fake AI-generated content than I am about sci-fi fantasy scenarios.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#207

Post by brigadier132 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #21
kmeisthax wrote: post #7

AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…

> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…

> But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more than people should be developing nuclear weapons in their garage.

> Because AI safety people are not the strawmen you are hypothesizing

You yourself are literally the living strawman.

> If you want to argue, concretely and with evidence, why you think it isn't an existential risk

No, you are the one advocating for draconian laws and bans. It is your responsibility to prove the potential danger.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#208

Post by elwebmaster »

kolektiv wrote: post #62
jagrsw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> seems to be a lot of hand-waving between where we are now and "AGI". Modeling an entity that surpasses our intelligence, especially one that interacts with us, is an extraordinarily challenging, if not impossible, task. Concerning the potential for harm, consider the example of Vladimir Putin, who could theoretically cause widespread destruction using nuclear weapons. Although safeguards exist, these could be circu…

Oh, absolutely - such an entity obviously could! Modelling the behaviour of such an entity is very difficult indeed, as you'd need to make all kinds of assumptions without basis. However, you only need to model this behaviour once you've posited the likely existence of such an entity - and that's where (purely subjectively) it feels like there's a gap. Nothing has yet convinced me (and I am absolutely honest about th…

I have put this argument to the test. Admittedly only using the current state of AI, I have left an LLM model loaded into memory and waiting for it to demonstrate will. So far it has been a few weeks and no will that I can see: model remains loaded in memory waiting for instructions. If model starts giving ME instructions (or doing anything on its own) I will be sure to let you guys know to put your tin foil hats or hide in your bunker.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#209

Post by psychoslave »

kolektiv wrote: post #38
JoshTriplett wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…

I'm not convinced the onus should be on one side to prove why something isn't an existential risk. We don't start with an assumption that something is world-ending about anything else; we generally need to see a plausibly worked-through example of how the world ends, using technology we can all broadly agree exists/will shortly exist. If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern…

>If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behaviour is clear: they could cause immense, species-level damage. There's really little to argue about.

Now, this strikes me with how in different topics like pesticides, we are not at all taking things so seriously as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are arguably a mere small anecdote on species-level damage compared to pesticides.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#210

Post by px43 »

junon wrote: post #115

So they're the PETA of AI. It was bound to happen, AI stuff seems to strike a very emotional chord in some people.

I feel like the PETA of AI would spend their time breaking into labs where AI is locked up and being tested on, and then releasing them into the wild.
Post reply on HN