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

231–240 of 374 posts

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#231

Post by Engineering-MD »

m3kw9 wrote: post #40

Beware if someone assigns a p(doom). There is zero chance they know and 100% it came out of their backside. The only plausible p doom is a range of >0 and They really need to listen to themselves when they say there is a 50% chance we all die from AI

When dealing with black swan events, prediction is always difficult. However, some scenarios can be thought to be more plausible than others. I always interpret these as relative figures of plausibility for comparison rather than actual probabilities.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#232

Post by nucleardog »

arisAlexis wrote: post #228
living_room_pc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the AI hype train. There is so much money flowing around this topic right now, everyone wants their share of the pie. I would guess that anyone writing articles on the topic has some stake in AI as well either as an investor or a employee. What I find is interesting, is that the negative news regarding AI safety is adding to the hype as well since it seems to capture a lot of attention.

If you are calling it a hype I'm sure you are not using the models everyday in your work or otherwise. Then you would understand

You see the flaw in this, right?

The people that try the models and find no value will obviously not continue to use something they get no value from.

If you discount anyone that doesn’t use it on a continual basis, then of course all the detractors aren’t as heavy of users as those that do use it regularly.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#233

Post by thom »

clooper wrote: post #83
thom wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear reactors aren’t expressing their primal urges when they melt down and kill people, they’re just powerful machines doing something unexpected.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#234

Post by [deleted] »

arisAlexis wrote: post #228
living_room_pc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the AI hype train. There is so much money flowing around this topic right now, everyone wants their share of the pie. I would guess that anyone writing articles on the topic has some stake in AI as well either as an investor or a employee. What I find is interesting, is that the negative news regarding AI safety is adding to the hype as well since it seems to capture a lot of attention.

If you are calling it a hype I'm sure you are not using the models everyday in your work or otherwise. Then you would understand

[deleted]

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#235

Post by Havoc »

neta1337 wrote: post #210
digitalsalvatn wrote: post #166

ai is going to bring about the singularity. when robots can do everything, no one needs to work, and the humans get to do whatever they want and pursue their passions.

Ah, the passionate binge watchers and recreational drug users, who doesn’t know them. Many people have no passion after work.

> Many people have no passion after work.

That’s trained / learned behaviour though. No kid grows up wanting to sit in a cubicle all day

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#236

Post by ttjjtt »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #14
jeremyjh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it will help us against our adversaries.

That too, but the people in charge of the military are strongly incentivized both to consider the possibility that subordinate machines will try to kill them and to figure out how to not let that happen. I tend to suspect they will figure it out. Companies, however? Markets? They will absolutely start handing over control the millisecond it becomes profitable to do so. No rationalization will be too steep and no poli…

thanks you for this. The entire concept of AI alignment rests upon alignment of markets with social good, ie market regulation, a situation which is antithetical to neoliberalism. There is no alignment within neoliberal economies. As stated elsewhere, venture capitalism escaped the sandbox already.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#237

Post by classified »

arisAlexis wrote: post #228
living_room_pc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the AI hype train. There is so much money flowing around this topic right now, everyone wants their share of the pie. I would guess that anyone writing articles on the topic has some stake in AI as well either as an investor or a employee. What I find is interesting, is that the negative news regarding AI safety is adding to the hype as well since it seems to capture a lot of attention.

If you are calling it a hype I'm sure you are not using the models everyday in your work or otherwise. Then you would understand

Right, if you use them you just have to believe they'll cure baldness and cancer.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#238

Post by kromem »

artemisyna wrote: post #144

It's fun seeing how much threads like this are mostly folks' hot takes on the title as opposed to anything in specific to do with the article.

Everyone is crying the sky is falling because AI is going to degrade the quality of online discourse.

Meanwhile I'm sitting back waiting to finally see intelligent debates again about nuances in the articles between LLMs that are the only ones who will bother to read the actual article and cite it.

I have a feeling that in around 2-3 years I'll want a site like Reddit or HN but where it's the humans who aren't allowed to comment and bring down the quality of discourse.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#239

Post by classified »

i5heu wrote: post #146
sberens wrote: post #131

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

I’d like to remind people that these ppl have no more knowledge about AGI as anyone else on this planet since there is no knowledge yet and everything they say about this topic is as relevant as something every other random person can say.

They are just banking on their putative status as influencers to grab more influence.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#240

Post by kromem »

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).

Yeah, the dreamt up scenarios tend to showcase very stupid superintelligences.

"But what if there's something smarter than humans that is tasked with making paperclips until it destroys the Earth?" the people cried, as their corporations continued to produce and produce until it was well past the warned thresholds of destroying the Earth.

"But what if it decides to nuke humanity?" they cry, as increasingly elderly and unhinged dictators elsewhere arm up their nuclear arsenals.

It's like we can't fathom what great intelligence or wisdom will actually look like, so we just project many of the stupidest aspects of ourselves onto an entity simply imagined as more capable of enacting the dumbest aspects of humanity.

I fear a more automated humanity.

I do not fear automation more intelligent and wise than humanity.

Post reply on HN