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

Among the A.I. doomsayers

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 374 posts

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#81

Post by clooper »

ycombobreaker wrote: post #67
majormajor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really believe AI is going to be significantly more intelligent than humans, then things like "it'll just threaten to kill you if you don't maintain it's infrastructure" sound wildly off base. That's how similarly-intelligent creatures interact with each other. If it's truly a "we couldn't possibly outsmart the AI" scenario why would it be likely to end up like that instead of something more like how humans ge…

> ... something more like how humans get along with dogs, cats, cattle, insects, or microbes? There's some MASSIVE selection bias here. Note that we're significantly more capable than anything you listed. Where are the Neanderthals? They're all long dead, because they were credible competition but we were just better. In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capabili…

AI has no evolutionary pressures imposed on it like humans and their brains so there is no reason to expect it to be an ultra violent predator like humans.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#82

Post by o11c »

mupuff1234 wrote: post #37

It seems much more likely to me that the harm from AI will be higher unemployment rate than it will be some evil AI trying to destroy humanity.

It's already harming us with a flood of spam-quality data.

And worse - it has many human cultists embracing the doom it bears.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#83

Post by clooper »

thom wrote: post #51
matteoraso wrote: post #31

I've always wondered why people think that an AI that's super-intelligent will also be evil. It could just as likely end up being very kind (more than likely, actually, because the programmers would have safeguard to ensure that it's nice).

There are extremely high capability entities (people, companies, governments) that aren’t comically evil on the surface but nevertheless immiserate large groups of humans. Not all of them, not all of the time, but not none of them. What is your plan that no AI ever gains enough power to harm significant numbers of people either on purpose or by accident, just once? What safeguards do you envision that can’t be ignore…

Controlling people with violence and fear are evolutionary adaptations for ultra violent social primates. AI has no such pressures imposed on it so there is no reason to expect true AI will have the same drives as ultra violent predators like humans.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#84

Post by p1esk »

HankB99 wrote: post #49

If I let my imagination run wild, I can imagine that at some point AI becomes in some way sentient. By that I mean it gains reasoning, some sort of understanding, and motivation. I wonder what the possibility is that this AI will decide that a pitched battle is going to waste resources and risk humans pulling the plug. What if it understood that and instead operated so subtly that it was not obvious it was controllin…

If AI does ever become sentient, it will probably reason and decide about eliminating large swaths of human population in a similar fashion as we reason and decide about eliminating large swaths of ant population.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#85

Post by nicbou »

felipeerias wrote: post #58
mupuff1234 wrote: post #37

It seems much more likely to me that the harm from AI will be higher unemployment rate than it will be some evil AI trying to destroy humanity.

The focus on an “evil” AI intentionally ignores the many ways in which “dumb” AI systems are already wreaking havoc in our societies.

Yes! AI-generated content is already feeling like an invasive species on the internet. A lot of people are excited about using it to meet their KPIs at the expense of ruining things we enjoy.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#86

Post by bamboozled »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #69
drooby wrote: post #62

AGI escaping a sandbox is truly terrifying. There will be a subgroup of the population that will worship it and work for it. It's not so much AGI that scares me - it's the humans I'm scared of.

I'm much more scared of the AGI, because even the most inhuman human is still human, and I can have sympathy for them.

How do you know part of being self aware and intelligent also means compassion is part of the package ?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#87

Post by jprete »

bamboozled wrote: post #72
drooby wrote: post #62

AGI escaping a sandbox is truly terrifying. There will be a subgroup of the population that will worship it and work for it. It's not so much AGI that scares me - it's the humans I'm scared of.

Isn’t ChatGPT et all already a general intelligence that’s escaped the sandbox ?

No. It lacks the capability to act independently of human requests.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#88

Post by kortilla »

Dalewyn wrote: post #44
drcode wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can credibly threaten to kill any person who does not help it to maintain its data centers, so it will solve that problem in whatever specific way is most convenient. (For those saying this is a "sci fi just so story" or whatever, please please share with us how it is we will share the world with a species more intelligent than us and nothing bad happens- I would be so happy if you could explain this in a convinci…

>please please share with us how it is we will share the world with a species more intelligent than us and nothing bad happens Don't be fucking assholes to them? I'm serious. Of course someone (or something) will treat you like dirt if you are an asshole to them. Don't be assholes, be honorable and friendly. And I can see your next question/argument, so I am going to preempt it: Raise your AI to be honorable and frie…

The gazelle is not an asshole to the lion, yet it never works out well for the gazelle.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#89

Post by jprete »

bglazer wrote: post #80
thom wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that your final sentence buys humanity a thousand years, a hundred years, or what?

It gives us as long as we want. Just don’t give the AI enough robots to sustain its own existence. In the meantime we can figure out either alignment or coexistence.

How are you planning to prevent VCs and startups from giving the AI as many robots as it wants?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#90

Post by jprete »

clooper wrote: post #81
ycombobreaker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... something more like how humans get along with dogs, cats, cattle, insects, or microbes? There's some MASSIVE selection bias here. Note that we're significantly more capable than anything you listed. Where are the Neanderthals? They're all long dead, because they were credible competition but we were just better. In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capabili…

AI has no evolutionary pressures imposed on it like humans and their brains so there is no reason to expect it to be an ultra violent predator like humans.

Anything that reproduces with survivable mutations, and consumes resources, is immediately subject to evolutionary pressure. Neither of those require biology.
Post reply on HN