Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much.
What resources do these AI chatbots consume?
GPU time.
Among the A.I. doomsayers
111–120 of 374 posts
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#112If 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…
Silly question. If an AGI did exist, what reason do we have to believe that it would act in its own best interest? Does an AGI need an ego?
Silly answer. There's going to be multiples and, if there's one takeaway you should get from The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, is that evolution will eventually get you something that "wants to live" because the lines that don't? Won't be around to compete.
Right now our little LLMs are passive, reactive. Prod them for results. But if the output of a prompt of some descendant ever includes a "give yourself your own tasks" subclause? We're off to the races.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That’s a political question. It would require maintaining popular resistance to giving over all critical segments of the economy to AI. Of course that would be difficult, given the short term gains that would bring, but people seem pretty good at hanging on to ideology at their own expense.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#114Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#115I'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).
I'm not evil, I just really need to make these paperclips, you see, and I could probably repurpose your atoms for the Hypnodrones.
Good and evil are irrelevant. If it is extremely capable and its goals conflict with ours, conflict will occur. This does not require evil, just disagreement. And in the disagreement of desires between you and the hamster, who wins?
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t ChatGPT et all already a general intelligence that’s escaped the sandbox ?
ChatGPT is arguably a general intelligence, but it hasn't escaped AFAIK -- it's still contained within OpenAI infrastructure, and OpenAI can easily pull the plug on it.
[dead]
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#117AGI 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.
Potentially there are no good outcomes even if AGI remains under control. If we are actually able to create the type of AI entity they are trying to create, one that exponentially improves, the implications are beyond what most have thought about.
Something I recently wrote in depth about here. How we completely misunderstand the future that we think will happen.
"The implication is that everyone is enthusiastically racing towards a destination that does not exist. The capability to make the things you want will ironically be the same capability that makes them unattainable. This is not a scenario that arises from some type of AI failure, but rather this is assuming AI performing exactly as intended."
https://www.mindprison.cc/p/the-technological-acceleration-p...
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#118People have been watching too many movies. War Games, Terminator, it's not like we haven't been forewarned of the dangers. Yet somehow we're going to hand over power to AI such that it destroys us. Or somehow the AI is going to be extremely malign, determined to overcome and destroy and will outsmart us. Somehow we won't notice, even after repeated, melodramatic reminders, and won't neuter the ability of AI to act ou…
Right now, there are many people on this forum who work for individuals they've never met in the flesh. Reasonable simulation of emails, phone calls, and Zoom meetings are what an AGI needs to deceive the humans, not a dozen mechs lurching about a fortress of crystalline computer chips. You wouldn't know, and if you did know, where would you go for the off switch?
And remember, by the time you've caught on, a bunch of custom blades have arrived at a co-lo, with someone dispatched to install them. Everyone loves a side gig, and hooking up these blades is great.
A reasonably deceptive AGI would pursue a strategy like that as just one tine in a fork. Then there's the botnets, the poorly-secured printers, and there's firmware to corrupt!
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that we can record our demise in high definition? Technology is amazing, and we have our civilization to be thankful for. But there are definitely technologies that in retrospect, if we had dodged them on the tech tree, we would be better off. Life would have continued just fine without many technologies, and I think AGI is one of them. We do not need AGI to survive and grow, and therefore any risk it imposes shou…
I think this perspective ignores that the only way to semi permanently improve the lives of future humans is technology, and that quality of life is of similar importance to survival, especially at its extremes. AGI, if we achieve it, could genuinely make human lives much better.
Technology could also make life worse. It has caused the rise of the middle class and democracy, but now it seems like technology is moving us back towards feudalism or something like it.
It feels like democracy is not going to survive social media. I'm not sure if that is true yet, but it does seem that way.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#120AGI 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 think this point is underrated, but I’d press further. How do we know this has not already happened? Agencies do not need to be born of gradient descent and certainly do not need to look like matrix multiplications to be deemed “artificially intelligent.” Religion is one such system for example, as are cults, addictions, brands, war strategies, organizing campaigns, governments, or (borrowing from chaos magick) any…
Talk that introduced me to this idea of corporations as Paperclip Maximiser AI -
"Dude you broke the Future" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4