201–210 of 508 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps "AGI" and potential extinction event level fears is giving this more drama than it should have. Seems like potential extinction event level fears might justify some drama.
It's essentially Pascal's wager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues". Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone…
> pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person. That’s why we don’t let a random Joe fly a 747, there is extensive training, licensing, etc. Do you envision the same for operating AI? In the real world you can’t even drive a moped without licence, registration and insurance. Same goes for access to dangerous chemicals. If…
The same is going to happen with AI. There will be bad actors, and trying to stop them from using AI for whatever "hostile" purposes it might yield is going to be nigh-impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. It's interesting that's how it looks like to you from the outside. If you look a little closer at the "AI Safety" community, it consists of two competing factions: the faction responsible for the Bard debacle, and the faction that's focused on trying to prevent…
Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok elon
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."
An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed. Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living…
Yes, indeed, which is why we should avoid creating something that will kill everyone...
...so I guess I'm glad to hear there's no difference in the amount of damage that can be inflicted by a baby, and by Vladimir Putin, and superintelligent AI really can't be any worse than either.
Why is cult of personality so prevalent in the engineering / hacker community?
Absurd amounts of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. Astonishing claim, when some such researchers have (unfortunately) been responsible for many of the most impressive capabilities advancements in the last few years, and the three mo…
The world still funds AI that completely disregards the notion of "safety" out of the gate. You can argue that those AIs aren't dangerous to begin with, but I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents.
Note that this is not a valid argument against any argument that superintelligent AI might kill everyone; it's just a character attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference here is that these aren't standard-issue HR/legal issues. The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers. This is uncharted territory, not just for the tech sector, but period. Whether the recent public back-and-forth is just internal drama/politics spilling out, or there really is a lack of gravitas around the handling of these issues within the company-- neither is good. Others have s…
Text continuation poses "the greatest of dangers"?
"...I also went to a panel in Palantir’s booth titled Civilian Harm Mitigation. It was led by two “privacy and civil liberties engineers” – a young man and woman who spoke exclusively in monotone. They also used countless euphemisms for bombing and death. The woman described how Palantir’s Gaia map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the target nomination process”. She meant it helps people choose which places get bombed.
After she clicked a few options on an interactive map, a targeted landmass lit up with bright blue blobs. These blobs, she said, were civilian areas like hospitals and schools. The civilian locations could also be described in text, she said, but it can take a long time to read. So, Gaia uses a large language model (something like ChatGPT) to sift through this information and simplify it. Essentially, people choosing bomb targets get a dumbed-down version of information about where children sleep and families get medical treatment."
Definitely not dangerous at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this kind of hilarious because I had just been commenting that, "at the moment all the engineers at OpenAI, including gdb, who currently have their credibility in tact are nerd-washing Altman's tarnished reputation by staying there." And lo and behold, Altman chooses gdb's twitter account to make the first joint statement instead of his own, creepily signing off "Sam and Greg" instead of "Greg and Sam" on gdb'…
There seem to be only three options here: 1) AGI is not around the corner, so no worries 2) He no longer cares about the possible negative effects, a departure from his past statements 3) I missed something, please help me learn
that tells me everything i need to know about Open AIs concern for any kind of safety.