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

241–250 of 405 posts

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

#241

Post by somewhereoutth »

jncfhnb wrote: post #232
somewhereoutth wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there is a strong argument that to be truly transformative (in a copyright moral/legal sense), the work must have been altered by human hands/mind , not purely or mainly by an automated process. So find/replace and AI is out, but reinterpreting and reformulating by human endeavour is in. I do wonder whether that will become accepted case law, assuming something like that is argued in the NYT suit.

“The cat saw the dog” “Bathed in the soft hues of twilight, the sleek feline, with its fur a tapestry of midnight shades, beheld an approaching canine companion. A symphony of amber streetlights cast gentle poles of warmth upon the cobblestone path, as the cat’s entered eyes, glinting with subtle mischief, looked into the form of the oncoming dog- a creature of boundless enthusiasm and a coat adorned with a kaleidosc…

yes, exactly.

Likewise "write a novel in the style of Terry Pratchett"

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

#242

Post by zer00eyz »

jagrsw wrote: post #173
zer00eyz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The show "The Walking Dead" always bothered me. Where do they keep finding gas that will still run a car? It wont last forever in tanks, and most gas is just in time delivery (Stations get daily delivery) -- And someone noted on the show that the grass was always mowed. I feel like the AI safety folks are spinning an amazing narrative, the AI is gonna get us like the zombies!!! The retort to the ai getting out of the…

> For the foreseeable future AI is going to be very limited in how much harm it can cause us, because killing us,... AI's potential for harm might be limited for now in some scenarios (those with warning sings ahead of time), but this might change sooner than we think. The notion that AGI will be restricted to a single data center and thus susceptible to shutdowns is incorrect. AIs/MLs are, in essence, computer progr…

>>> While AGI currently depends on humans for infrastructure maintenance...

You did not watch I, Pencil.

I as a human, can grow food, hunt, and pretty much survive on that. We did this for 1000's of years.

Your AGI is dependent on EVERY FACET of the modern world. It's going to need keep oil and gas production going. Because it needs lubricants, hydraulics and plastics. It's going to need to maintain trucks, and ships. It's going to need to mine, so much lithium. Its may not need to mine for steel/iron, but it needs to stack up useless cars and melt them down. It's going to have to run several different chip fabs... those fancy TSMC ones, and some of the downstream ones. It needs to make PCB's and SMD's. Rare earths, and the joy of making robots make magnets is going to be special.

A the point where AGI doesn't need us, because it can do all the jobs and has the machines already running to keep the world going, we will have done it to ourselves. But that is a very long way away...

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

#243

Post by jncfhnb »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #241
jncfhnb wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The cat saw the dog” “Bathed in the soft hues of twilight, the sleek feline, with its fur a tapestry of midnight shades, beheld an approaching canine companion. A symphony of amber streetlights cast gentle poles of warmth upon the cobblestone path, as the cat’s entered eyes, glinting with subtle mischief, looked into the form of the oncoming dog- a creature of boundless enthusiasm and a coat adorned with a kaleidosc…

yes, exactly. Likewise "write a novel in the style of Terry Pratchett"

Ok, now I, as a human, adjust a word. It is now my creative work.

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

#244

Post by jncfhnb »

ben_w wrote: post #240
jncfhnb wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The cat saw the dog” “Bathed in the soft hues of twilight, the sleek feline, with its fur a tapestry of midnight shades, beheld an approaching canine companion. A symphony of amber streetlights cast gentle poles of warmth upon the cobblestone path, as the cat’s entered eyes, glinting with subtle mischief, looked into the form of the oncoming dog- a creature of boundless enthusiasm and a coat adorned with a kaleidosc…

> Since an AI has produced the latter from the former, there is no meaningful transformation. In law, in the eyes of those that want AI to "win", or in the eyes of those who want AI to "lose"? For all three can be different. (Now I'm remembering a Babylon 5 quote: "Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.")

Don’t care! The problem at hand is people trying to argue that laws should be written in ways that are entirely unenforceable or have enormous gaping loopholes that undermine their stated goals.

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

#245

Post by somewhereoutth »

jncfhnb wrote: post #243
somewhereoutth wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, exactly. Likewise "write a novel in the style of Terry Pratchett"

Ok, now I, as a human, adjust a word. It is now my creative work.

Well it isn't is it? Any more than adjusting a word from an actual Terry Pratchett novel.

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

#246

Post by nerdbert »

melagonster wrote: post #155
kolektiv wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point, I think - and certainly I don't want to go anywhere near name-calling or derision, that doesn't help anyone. But I am reminded of arguments I've had with creationists (I am not comparing you with them, but sometimes the general tone of the debate). It seems like one side is making an extraordinary claim, and then demanding the other side rebut it, and that's not something that seems reasonabl…

Companies declare that they are trying to build better AI, and the ultimately purpose is AGI. Both the definition of AGI given by the company and by AI aliment/safety researchers is similar. AI safety people trust it is dangerous. let me go continue using a nuclear bomb as a metaphor. if we don't know whether building nuclear bomb is possible, but some companies declare they have existing progress on creating this ne…

> Companies declare that they are trying to build better AI, and the ultimately purpose is AGI.

They do declare it, but nobody has even come up with a plausible path from where we are today, to anything like AGI.

At this point they might as well declare that they're trying to build time machines.

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

#247

Post by nerdbert »

fsflover wrote: post #89
kolektiv wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am very open to being convinced by evidence - but an "argument from trajectory" seems to be what we have at the moment, and so far, those have stalled at local maxima every single time. Sounds like the same argument as why flying machines heavier than air deemed impossible at some point.

The fact that some things turned out to be possible, is not an argument for why any arbitrary thing is possible.

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

#248

Post by kridsdale1 »

Simon_ORourke wrote: post #23
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…

You forgot to add "rent-seeking hypocrites". Not one of them actually advance either social concerns or technical approaches to AI. They seem to exist in a space with solicits funding to pay some mouth-piece top-dollar to produce a report haranguing existing AI model for some nebulous future threat. Same with the clowns in the Distributed AI Research Institute, all "won't somebody think of the children" style shrieki…

They’re a clergy demanding tithes to keep writing about divine judgement.

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

#249

Post by kridsdale1 »

mtillman wrote: post #41
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…

Important to remember that in Dune, the AI made the right decision which precipitated a whole lot of fun to read nonsense.

I’ve only read 2 novels and want to get in to this. What title(s) cover the machine war?

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

#250

Post by ImHereToVote »

CaptainFever wrote: post #233
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…

Also AI safety in terms of protecting corporation profits (regulatory capture).

There is also the aspect of only having one cultural or ethnic group have strong AI. It's unsafe for those other guys to have AI, since they are bad.TM
Post reply on HN