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

71–80 of 132 posts

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

#71

Post by bathtub365 »

TZubiri wrote: post #70

"It does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer screen), but it can control existing physical tools, robots, or laboratory equipment through a computer; in theory it could even design robots or equipment for itself to use." I think I get where the author is coming from, the AI would be in the cloud. But it bears repeating, the cloud is somebody else's computers, software has a physical embodi…

I wonder if there’s a word that describes the property of software where it isn’t tied to the hardware that it’s currently running on and is endlessly copyable with almost no effort

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

#72

Post by xpe »

TZubiri wrote: post #70

"It does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer screen), but it can control existing physical tools, robots, or laboratory equipment through a computer; in theory it could even design robots or equipment for itself to use." I think I get where the author is coming from, the AI would be in the cloud. But it bears repeating, the cloud is somebody else's computers, software has a physical embodi…

Yes, and physical embodiments vary considerably. When software can relocate its source code and data in seconds or less, containment strategies begin to look increasingly bleak.

The field of AI safety has written extensively about misunderstandings and overoptimism regarding off switches and boxing.

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

#73

Post by xpe »

The linked article is worth reading.

Apologies for sounding so dismissive, but after putting in a lot of study myself, I want to warn people here: HN is not a great place for discussing AI safety. As of this writing, I’ve found minimal value in the comments here.

A curious and truth-seeking reader should find better forums and sources. I recommend seeking out a structured introduction from experts. One could do worse than start with Robert Miles on YouTube. Dan Hendrycks has a nice online textbook too.

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

#74

Post by tbrownaw »

amelius wrote: post #49
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…

History tells us that humans will not tolerate any "creature" to exist that is smarter than them, so that is where the story will end.

How exactly does this show up in history? When did we meet something smarter than us, and what did we do that was different than we were doing to less-smart things at the time?

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

#75

Post by tbrownaw »

swatcoder wrote: post #12
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…

> 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.

What is the minimum population size needed in order to have, say, computer chips? Or even a ball-point pen? I'd imagine those are a bit higher that what's needed to have pencils, which I've heard is enough that someone wrote a book about it.

> 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.

Is it really a "purge" if individuals are just not choosing to waste time learning things they have no use for?

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

#78

Post by realce »

K0balt wrote: post #67
realce wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> better adapted to live on this planet I'm a doomer, but this is something I never understand about most doomer points-of-view. Life is obviously trying to leave this planet, not conquer it again for the 1000th time. Nature is making something that isn't bound by water, by nutrition, by physical proximity to ecosystems, or by time itself. No more spontaneous volcanic lava floods, no more asteroids, no more earthquak…

While I would normally agree with this sentiment, I think that the issue is that space travel is still really hard, even for a human. Probably a lot harder for data center sized creatures, even if they are broken up into a massively parallel robot hive. And the speed of light means that they won’t be able to work optimally if they are too spread out. (A problem for humans as well). I suspect that we will reach the in…

Great reply!

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

#79

Post by TZubiri »

xpe wrote: post #72
TZubiri wrote: post #70

"It does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer screen), but it can control existing physical tools, robots, or laboratory equipment through a computer; in theory it could even design robots or equipment for itself to use." I think I get where the author is coming from, the AI would be in the cloud. But it bears repeating, the cloud is somebody else's computers, software has a physical embodi…

Yes, and physical embodiments vary considerably. When software can relocate its source code and data in seconds or less, containment strategies begin to look increasingly bleak. The field of AI safety has written extensively about misunderstandings and overoptimism regarding off switches and boxing.

Hard? sure. Impossible? No

This is a non-trivial error. Let's not dive into the geopolitics of kill switches and decentralized systems when we are discussing trivial mistakes. AI, like any software, is not an ethereal being, like us it is limited by our mortal coils.

This is true for extant systems, if anyone, layman or PHD were to say that TikTok or facebook, wechat or bitcoin or ethereum, USD tether has no physicial embodiment, whether for recreational discussion, or whether in court, or in a professional capacity. The answer needs to be that they are wrong, clear and simple.

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

#80

Post by TZubiri »

bathtub365 wrote: post #71
TZubiri wrote: post #70

"It does not have a physical embodiment (other than living on a computer screen), but it can control existing physical tools, robots, or laboratory equipment through a computer; in theory it could even design robots or equipment for itself to use." I think I get where the author is coming from, the AI would be in the cloud. But it bears repeating, the cloud is somebody else's computers, software has a physical embodi…

I wonder if there’s a word that describes the property of software where it isn’t tied to the hardware that it’s currently running on and is endlessly copyable with almost no effort

For the first half of that sentence, portable?

I'm not sure what the argument here is, Operating systems are now sentient an ethereal?

You could make the same argument for books for that matter, I guess they do exist in a form that is unbounded by the physical books that they reside in, they live in the minds of people. Whatever.

And the fact that they can be copied for "no effort" is first wrong, as copying would require energy, which is the other aspect of corporeality, you need not just matter but energy for the software to exist and express itself in the world.

What are we even debating? Have we lost our minds?

What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind

Post reply on HN