Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#11

Post by jimkleiber »

KaiserPro wrote: post #4

One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history. The same kinds of essays were written about trains, planes and nuclear power. Before lindbergh went off the deepend, he was convinced that "airmen" were gentlemen and could sort out the world's ills. The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. AI will be used to make things cheaper. That is, lots of j…

> The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature.

> AI isn't the problem, we are.

I think when we frame it as human _nature_, then yes, _we_ look like the problem.

But what if we frame it as human _culture_? Then _we_ aren't the problem, but rather our _behaviors/beliefs/knowledge/etc_ are.

If we focus on the former, we might just be essentially screwed. If we focus on the latter, we might be able to change things that seem like nature but might be more nurture.

Maybe that's a better framing: the base problem is human nurture?

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#12

Post by swatcoder »

KaiserPro wrote: post #4

One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history. The same kinds of essays were written about trains, planes and nuclear power. Before lindbergh went off the deepend, he was convinced that "airmen" were gentlemen and could sort out the world's ills. The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. AI will be used to make things cheaper. That is, lots of j…

> One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history.

First, while I often write much of the same sentiment about techno-optimism and history, you should remember that you're literally in the den of Silicon Valley startup hackers. It's not going to be an easily heard message here, because the site specifically appeals to people who dream of inspiring exactly these essays.

> The sooner we realise that its not a technical problem to be solved, but a human one, we might stand a chance.

Second... you're falling victim to the same trap, but simply preferring some kind of social or political technology instead of a mechanical or digital one.

What history mostly affirms is that prosperity and ruin come and go, and that nothing we engineer last for all that long, let alone forever. There's no point in dreading it, whatever kind of technology you favor or fear.

The bigger concern is that some of the acheivements of modernity have made the human future far more brittle than it has been in what may be hundreds of thousands of years. Global homogenization around elaborate technologies -- whether mechanical, digital, social, political or otherwise -- sets us up in a very "all or nothing" existential space, where ruin, when it eventually arrives, is just as global. Meanwhile, the purge of diverse, locally practiced, traditional wisdom about how to get by in un-modern environments steals the species of its essential fallback strategy.

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#13

Post by lewhoo »

gyre007 wrote: post #6

I think Dario is trying to raise a new round because OpenAI has done and will continue to do so, nevertheless, the essay provides for some really great reading and even if the fraction comes true, it'll be wonderful.

So it's bs but for money and therefore totally fine ? I think it's not ok if only a fraction comes true because some people believe in those things and act on those beliefs right now.

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#14

Post by kranke155 »

Are Americans really so scared of Marx to admit that AI fundamentally proves his point?

Dario here says "yeah likely the economic system won't work anymore" but he doesn't dare say what comes next: It's obvious some kind of socialist system is inevitable, at least for basic goods and housing. How can you deny that to a person in a post-AGI world where almost no one can produce economic value that beats the ever cheaper AI?

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#15

Post by laurex »

jimkleiber wrote: post #11
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history. The same kinds of essays were written about trains, planes and nuclear power. Before lindbergh went off the deepend, he was convinced that "airmen" were gentlemen and could sort out the world's ills. The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. AI will be used to make things cheaper. That is, lots of j…

> The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. > AI isn't the problem, we are. I think when we frame it as human _nature_, then yes, _we_ look like the problem. But what if we frame it as human _culture_? Then _we_ aren't the problem, but rather our _behaviors/beliefs/knowledge/etc_ are. If we focus on the former, we might just be essentially screwed. If we focus on the lat…

I think this is an important distinction. Yes, humans have some inbuilt weaknesses and proclivities, but humans are not required to live in or develop systems in which those weaknesses and proclivities are constantly exploited for the benefit/power of a few others. Throughout human history, there have been practices of contemplation, recognition of interdependence, and ways of increasing our capacity for compassion and thoughful response. We are currently in a biological runaway state with extraction, but it's not the only way humans have of behaving.

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#16

Post by bamboozled »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #8

Social media could have transformed the world for the better, and we can be forgiven for not having foreseen how it would eventually be used against us. It would be stupidity to fall for the same thing again.

I’m sure social media is what’s broken politics. Look at peoples comments on a some YouTube video. I can’t believe what people believe and perpetuate.

I guess people fell for other people’s garbage too but algorithms just make lies spread with a lot less effort and honest people are less inclined to participate in this behaviour.

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#17

Post by achrono »

jimkleiber wrote: post #11
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history. The same kinds of essays were written about trains, planes and nuclear power. Before lindbergh went off the deepend, he was convinced that "airmen" were gentlemen and could sort out the world's ills. The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. AI will be used to make things cheaper. That is, lots of j…

> The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. > AI isn't the problem, we are. I think when we frame it as human _nature_, then yes, _we_ look like the problem. But what if we frame it as human _culture_? Then _we_ aren't the problem, but rather our _behaviors/beliefs/knowledge/etc_ are. If we focus on the former, we might just be essentially screwed. If we focus on the lat…

Sure. But why do you think changing human nurture is any easier than changing human nature? I suspect that as your set of humans in consideration tends to include the set of all humans, the gap between changeability of human nature vs changeability of human nurture reduces to zero.

Perhaps you are implying that we sign up for a global (truly global, not global by the standards of Western journalists) campaign of complete and irrevocable reform in our behavior, beliefs and knowledge. At the very least, this implies simply killing off a huge number of human beings who for whatever reason stand in the way. This is not (just) a hypothesis -- some versions of this have been tried and tested. *

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#18

Post by gyre007 »

lewhoo wrote: post #13
gyre007 wrote: post #6

I think Dario is trying to raise a new round because OpenAI has done and will continue to do so, nevertheless, the essay provides for some really great reading and even if the fraction comes true, it'll be wonderful.

So it's bs but for money and therefore totally fine ? I think it's not ok if only a fraction comes true because some people believe in those things and act on those beliefs right now.

I didn't say it was bs. I was alluding to the timing of this essay being published but, clearly, I didn't articulate it in my message well. I also don't think everything he says is bs. Some of it I find a bit naive -- but maybe that's ok -- some other things seem a bit like sci-fi, but who are we to say this is impossible? I'm optimistic but also learnt in life that things improve, sometimes drastically given the right ingredients.

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#19

Post by mythrwy »

KaiserPro wrote: post #4

One of the sad things about tech is that nobody really looks at history. The same kinds of essays were written about trains, planes and nuclear power. Before lindbergh went off the deepend, he was convinced that "airmen" were gentlemen and could sort out the world's ills. The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. AI will be used to make things cheaper. That is, lots of j…

But will AI be eventually used to change human nature itself?

Re: Machines of loving grace: How AI could transform the world for the better

#20

Post by exe34 »

laurex wrote: post #15
jimkleiber wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The essay contains a lot of coulds, but doesn't touch on the base problem: human nature. > AI isn't the problem, we are. I think when we frame it as human _nature_, then yes, _we_ look like the problem. But what if we frame it as human _culture_? Then _we_ aren't the problem, but rather our _behaviors/beliefs/knowledge/etc_ are. If we focus on the former, we might just be essentially screwed. If we focus on the lat…

I think this is an important distinction. Yes, humans have some inbuilt weaknesses and proclivities, but humans are not required to live in or develop systems in which those weaknesses and proclivities are constantly exploited for the benefit/power of a few others. Throughout human history, there have been practices of contemplation, recognition of interdependence, and ways of increasing our capacity for compassion a…

> Throughout human history, there have been practices of contemplation, recognition of interdependence, and ways of increasing our capacity for compassion and thoughful response.

has this ever been widespread in society? I think such people have always been few and far between?

Post reply on HN