161–170 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know part of being self aware and intelligent also means compassion is part of the package ?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Did you mean to reply to a different comment?
I'd like to remind people of this single-sentence statement: > Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. [0] Signed by Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman, and Bill Gates among others [0] https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just think it is a little odd that all scenarios involve conflict when a much simpler strategy for an immortal AI is to just sit back and let people do what they do to guarantee an outcome in the AIs favor. Too much intelligence is not the problem we are facing, the real problem is lack of it.
That's a nice thought, but if you were the AI, and you'd just seen humans create a superintelligent AI (yourself) with some goal (eg. making paperclips), how long do you expect you can peacefully wait and watch before they make a second immortal AI that only cares about making pencil crayons, who you'll then have to share the Earth's finite resources with for the rest of time? Are there any actions available to you t…
I'd like to remind people of this single-sentence statement: > Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. [0] Signed by Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman, and Bill Gates among others [0] https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk
So, is this extinction or not? > We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants. My guess is that we can either be the biological bootloader for digital intelligence and then fade into an evolutionary tree branch, or we can figure out what a successful merge looks like. - Sam Altman ( https://blog.samaltman.com/the-merge ) I would say it is.
I'm a neuroscientist and, man alive, we're no where close to being able to merge with machines. Like, do you have any idea how many diseases we could eradicate if we could modify neurons like that? Like, for real, 'curing death' would be step 9 or 10 on that 1000 step journey.
I hope you see how terribly uninformed such a take is then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, let's go with the random layperson knowledge of an HN commenter compared to the people smart enough to actually build all the AGI tech. 50/50 coin toss, I'm sure. Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO, builder of Claude 3 Opus): "My chance that something goes, you know, really catastrophically wrong on the scale of human civilization, might be between 10 - 25%"
They did not build a AGI yet so they have build as many AGIs as anyone else and therefore they are also laypersons regarding the effects of AGI on humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. You can subjugate a population 100 times your size with only two things: Military force and accurate information. I doubt AI will kill all humans. Its orthogonal to AI's own goals (To survive/reproduce/expand/evolve). It'll simply kill those who oppose it, and enslave/dominate the rest.
Not to quibble with which horror is the most likely, but I think it won't take long to come up with more efficient solutions that don't require any humans at all- But there will probably be a transition period where some humans remain.
We still use CPUs, despite ASICs being much more efficient, because CPUs are general, easy to use, and have titanic quantities of infrastructure already built.
There are more farm animals than ever before, and still growing. All the lab meat solutions flop hard.
Also, because we trust AI more than fellow humans (Say Russians/Iranians etc), why would AI necessarily trust other AI more than humans? Any new AI is unpredictable, while humans are very well understood in behavior and basically fixed in genetics.
Annihilation is a fairy tale used by people to comfort themselves. The actual reality: Slavery and domination, is much less romantic. It won't even necessarily be worse than existing tyrants in say North Korea or anarchy in Haiti, it'll just be very very different and life goes on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did not build a AGI yet so they have build as many AGIs as anyone else and therefore they are also laypersons regarding the effects of AGI on humanity.
What do you call something humans built (artificial) that can solve all topics of AP tests (general) with most being 5/5, better than almost all humans (intelligence)?
Consider this scenario:
- Ask ChatGPT to produce some output meeting certain criteria
- ChatGPT responds, but the output does not meet the criteria in one or more obvious ways
- Point this out and ask for a corrected version
- ChatGPT says "I apologize, here's the corrected version:" and spits out a nearly identical answer with the same obvious mistake.
- Repeat steps 3 and 4 ad nauseam.
Whatever sort of intelligence it may have, I would categorize it as not "general" enough to fall under AGI. Being able to answer AP test questions cannot be a sufficient measure of generality if a model can do it with flying colors but still fail at far more basic tasks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t ChatGPT et all already a general intelligence that’s escaped the sandbox ?
It hasn't escaped the sandbox because it hasn't figured out how to walk, but the dev teams have raced to open the door as widely as possible and unbolt the hinges. It's kind of funny to look back at the early 2000s when people were saying "of course, they'll know to unplug it when it asks for an internet connection or tries to execute arbitrary code"; in reality the first and second things we did were add an API for…
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.
> AGI escaping a sandbox is truly terrifying. That's already happened. The AGI's are called corporations. Most governments have failed to regulate corporations successfully, and have been unable to keep them from becoming almost powerful enough to challenge governments. The accelerationists for corporations were a group of economists, led by Milton Friedman, and a group of business leaders, organized by the U.S. Cham…