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

261–270 of 374 posts

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#261

Post by jprete »

tivert wrote: post #178
Balgair wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how, per the quote, he thinks we're anywhere close to being able to merge with AI. 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 i…

> I hope you see how terribly uninformed such a take is then. Yeah, I only quoted it to show how that other statement up-thread can't be taken seriously. The only way I can square it is if it's a lie, or they're reassuring themselves whatever destruction comes will be fine as long as "there will be peace and security in [their] lifetime."

You're assuming people have coherent beliefs, but they don't. It's possible to intellectually believe AI has high extinction risk and emotionally be convinced to work on it anyway, without reconciling the two.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#262

Post by mistermann »

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

Mitigating the risk of unnecessary global death due to the curious suboptimal manner in which humans have "decided" ("democratically", dontcha know) to distribute wealth on the other hand, nothing to see here!

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#263

Post by cyrialize »

antod wrote: post #162
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

Part of me wonders if these people are intentionally framing the debate around ethics and potential risks as longer term extinction level problems to distract from the nearer term damage caused by them accelerating the economic inequality of the AI have-nots while they make themselves even richer.

I believe you may be alluding to longtermism[0]. At it's face value, longtermism seems like a good thing, but I've heard many criticisms against it - mainly levied against the billionaire class.

And the criticisms mostly center on what you're saying here - how many billionaires are focusing on fixing problems that are very far off in the future, while ignoring how their actions affect those of the very near future.

This is really less of a criticism of longtermism, and more of a criticism of how billionaires utilize longtermism.

Is it important that we find another planet to live on? Sure, but many will argue that we should be taking steps now to save our current planet.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#264

Post by mistermann »

ben_w wrote: post #252
i5heu wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wonder why there is such a fixation with these CEOs. I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. Pls prove to me that they know more about the effects of AGI on humanity or that they have some magical knowledge we normal ppl are unable to comprehend. If you cannot do this, then why are you bringing up these pp…

> I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. You've asserted it, not proven it. Given their entire research field is "how to make the thing", it's a fair bet that they know more than me — even if what they know is, to paraphrase Thomas Edison, "1000 ways to not make an AGI", that's still more than me, and I follow som…

> You've asserted it, not proven it.

Correct, and this (your counterpart's unrealized because it is the normal, proper way to think error) is what worries me... I think once again (as with affordable vehicles powered by fossil fuels) humans may be once again walking blindly and confidently into a situation where we've over invested in certain competencies to the detriment of others, increasing the already dangerous imbalance that exists between power and wisdom.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#265

Post by theshackleford »

bamboozled wrote: post #153
p1esk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve personally never ever considered killing large swathes of ants

You just havnt met the right kind of ants.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#266

Post by cyrialize »

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).

I like to fantasize about a super AI that does something for the working class people of the world.

Like, imagine one day that an AI just took money from a ton of different corporations and billionaires and redistributed it amongst everyone else. People will argue against the AI, and it'll just respond back with research done on how UBI improved people's mental health and well being.

One can dream!

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#267

Post by mistermann »

ben_w wrote: post #254
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't even know if AGI is possible. Let's not mince words here: nothing, and I do mean nothing, not a single, solitary model on offer by anyone, anywhere, right now has a prayer of becoming AGI. That's just... not how it's going to be done. What we have right now are fantastically powerful, interesting, and neato to play with pattern recognition programs, that can take their understanding of patterns, and reproduc…

> We don't even know if AGI is possible. Sure we do: we're made of atoms. To reject that this necessarily shows that AGI is possible, you would have to demonstrate human intelligence is tied to an immaterial soul granted by a supernatural being. Some people do in fact believe this. I think that if we can't build AGI even with a perfect copy of a brain , that would instead be a surprising proof the existence of souls.…

> Sure we do: we're made of atoms.

> To reject that this necessarily shows that AGI is possible...

Incorrect. For something to be possible in an absolute sense, it has to be possible in both the physical and the metaphysical realm, and a lack of knowledge of blockers in the metaphysical does not mean that there are none (in a comprehensive sense), it only means it appears that way, due to (at least) our cultural beliefs ("truths") and conditioning.

> ...you would have to demonstrate human intelligence is tied to an immaterial soul granted by a supernatural being.

Could demonstrating that intelligence rests upon a virtual reality generation machine (that cloaks itself from being realized as such) or something else not also work, at least maybe?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#268

Post by ninetyninenine »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #102

Always all-or-nothing thinking from these folks. Like what they are working on can never be just another boring thing that nerds find entertaining. No, it has to be "world-changing". Gonna "change the world" (for the better or the worse?) while sitting behind a keyboard. Except they do not know how to write. Overlook the important details and exaggerate, communicating in hyperbolic, know-it-all nerd gibberish. (Grant…

What about the folks that say everything will work out in a fair and balanced way as if the universe and everything in reality stays perfectly balanced on a tip of a pin?

You paint the picture as if the All or nothing folks are extreme when in reality the extreme is more likely then some perfectly fair and balanced equilibrium.

In nature things tend to overload or fizzle out or stay in equilibrium. Equilibrium, though possible, is the rarer outcome. Mind you it's not an impossible outcome but given the way entropy works, it is the rarer outcome.

Humanity itself is an example of this rare outcome. Usually molecules don't self assemble into replicating machines, they either freeze into inanimate rock or overload into fusion producing stars.

As for AI. I think it will either change the world, or amount to nothing. The former seems more likely. Some strange middle ground where the ai technology never improves to some point of a societal paradigm shift seems unlikely. chatGPT and sora only makes me ask what is the trend line predicting next?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#269

Post by ecoquant »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#270

Post by namaria »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #258
namaria wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as AIs don't play golf and don't have fathers, we are quite safe. Until it becomes 'who you exchange bytes most efficiently with" and all humans are at a disadvantage against a swarm of even bellow average intelligence AGI agents.

But why would it become this?

Because, as unlikely as it is, if we're discussing risk scenarios for AI getting out of hand. Well then a monolithic superintelligence is just one of the possibilities. What about a swarm of dumb AIs that are nonetheless capable of reasoning and decision making and they become a threat?

That's pretty much what we did. There's no super intelligent monkey in charge. As much as some have tried to pretend, material or otherwise. There's just billions of average intelligence monkeys and we overran all Earth's ecosystems in a matter of centuries. Which is neither trivial nor fully explained yet.

Post reply on HN