251–260 of 508 posts
i don't care what they say, i care what they do, and what they do is force employees to sign a "life time non criticism" document before leaving. that tells me everything i need to know about Open AIs concern for any kind of safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of hand waving from those words. Right now LLM isn’t more dangerous than harmful google results. The future where AI sends a terminator to destroy us is the part I’m having issues with
Perhaps gangs will start sending assassin-bots at eachother, but the more realistic threat for most people is getting banned from society after you post a wrongthink somewhere and get your social credit score nuked.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drug-cartels-more-bomb-dropping...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? I have a rock that keeps lions away. I know it works, because I haven't seen any lions.
Irrelevant metaphor. On what basis has Altman/OpenAI earned the distrust of so many in the HN comments? All I seem to find are speculation about the future and what reads a lot like petty jealousy. Where is the evidence of the lions on the prowl? Surely we should insist on a gazelle corpse or at least some paw prints before declaring an emergency and going on a lion hunt.
Genuine question, do you care to know? Or are you only asking this question as a prelude to delivering insult?
When you ask why people believe X in one breath and then suggest it's because of "petty jealousy" in the next, you'll succeed at conveying your dim view of them but fail to create a conversation where it is possible for you to learn something about why people think that way.
Jealousy is a particularly slippery hypothesis because it is fully generalizable. You can explain any criticism of anybody as jealousy. It is my observation that people often accuse others of jealousy when they want to dismiss a perspective. In that way, it functions less as an explanation than as a defense mechanism; an escape hatch from the uncomfortable feeling of simultaneously disagreeing with someone and acknowledging that there perspective might not be meritless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, what actions have they taken that are unethical?
Um, closing access to their model code when "Open" is right there in their name and was the original promise they made? Plenty of other posts in this discussion give other examples. That's without even getting into all that happened with Altman leaving and then coming back, which has already been discussed to death in other HN threads.
Tech people who don't like OpenAI have got to come up with a better line. Everytime I mention to someone normal that this is a complaint immediately eyes roll.
No one says "North Korea is bad because they call themselves a Democratic People's Republic despite having a dictator" because that is incredibly not important nor was it ever expected.
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
Unfortunately while this is very likely the case, the vast amount of money being poured into these projects will also seep into other horrifying projects like: Lavender or Pattern (seriously go look up both of these, it's actually going to fry your brain).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we move beyond the “man made climate change isn’t real” discourse where you somehow pretend that AI “Is no big deal”. Let’s have a closer look at the actual parent comment hm? > this organization is increasingly looking like a circus, and arguably worse, one that has taken its eye off the ball.
This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism…
> There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are
…but they do not dispute that the technology is impactful.
In fact, anyone who claims it is just “Text continuation”(quote) is being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately downplaying it.
> Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric
Unlike calling AI “Text continuation”?
It’s awfully convenient it’s only lazy internet rhetoric when it’s coming from the other side.
Hm?
Why is only one side allowed to do that?
Would you care to call out the other side for being reductionist?
That’s a very high horse you’re sitting on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we move beyond the “man made climate change isn’t real” discourse where you somehow pretend that AI “Is no big deal”. Let’s have a closer look at the actual parent comment hm? > this organization is increasingly looking like a circus, and arguably worse, one that has taken its eye off the ball.
This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism…
Even if AI doesn't ever go "evil" itself, that doesn't mean people that don't like other people won't use it to more effectively kill those people. All that's really needed is a capable programmer willing to give the LLM the tools it needs, along with funds and access. The LLM could hire humans to do the work it's lacking at. These things are already capable of all that, plus our world went mostly digital during the pandemic... they have easy egress because humans have made it so, even though that was meant for other humans to use. If you don't think they are scary, in the wrong hands, then you are lacking in imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have? None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. > Can it be turned off? Yes it's a machine. Save state, power down. > Can it commit crimes or be punished? See PGE and its own death toll. > Does it have rights? No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If y…
> None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. The question of rights would be legislative rather than judicial. More importantly, the discussion should actually be among the people first in anything resembling a democracy, the few in charge are meant to represent us not rule us. > See PGE and its own death toll. Unless I'm mistaken, PGE isn't an artificial intelligence or sentient. > No,…
Fusion, flying cars, AI in the 50's and in the 70's... Hell Hal was born in 97 and the film was in 68.
For as impressive as LLM's are once you dig into them they aren't magical at all. A sophisticated model of language that predicts the next word is about as likely to become an AGI as whether predictions are likely to control the weather. Ask any expert in AGI what the "next token" is and they are going to fucking disagree. This isnt us building the bomb where we have a pretty good idea of how to do it and just need to put all the parts together. This is a bunch of people stabbing in the dark and getting lucky here and there.
Were not going to bumble fuck our way forward on this, and the path were going down has potential to be a game changer but its not going to give us a super intelligence...
I feel like this megaphone about AI safety and creating a sense of doom is a strategy to increase importance of OpenAI and exaggerate the capabilities of LLMs. This era of “AI” is all about pretending that machines can think and the people working in these machines are prophets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universal basic income? The idea behind that was people would go on to pursue more creative or artistic jobs that don’t prioritize profit after being given a basic income to live off. Unfortunately it won’t work out that way: We see now that AI will mostly take over creative and artistic work and people will have no motivation to pursue art. The only jobs left for humans are hard physical labor and no one seems excit…
> Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society. So what are we going to do with all of the excess humans once human productivity jumps one, two, or three more orders of magnitude?
/s