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

The Future of AI

lucijagregov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#21

Post by thegrey_one »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #14
mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

You’re assuming people have similar desires. Even in human relations it’s dangerous. I for one don’t want to be treated the same way someone into BDSM wants to be treated. I don’t want to avoid cooking or turning the lights on (or off!) on a Friday night but others are quite happy with that. If you assign that morality to a species that isn’t the same as you that’s a problem. My guinea pig wants nothing more from lik…

That's not the human norm though. Doubt an average human way of existing is literal torture for some obscure number of people. I think you're missing the forest for the threes with that BDSM example. You can always find isolated examples as counter-argument for basically anything, but in reality that's an obscure number.

Due to the complexity of our reality a lot of things find themselves on a spectrum, but in numbers things are pretty clear.

Re: The Future of AI

#22

Post by jj_the_bunny »

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

The Golden Rule is a good starting point if you have a sense of self along with a sense of what you want or need. AI doesn't even have these concepts as of yet. Even the concept of empathy requires this as well. We need to figure out how to instill a sense of self and others for AI to be able to have a morality.

Re: The Future of AI

#23

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

demorro wrote: post #18

When people say AI is making us stupider, I don't that's quite on the money. It's more that we, as individuals, have always been stupid, we've just relied on relatively stable supporting consensus and context much, much more than we acknowledge. Mess with that, and we'll appear much stupider, but we're all just doing the same thing as individuals, garbage in, garbage out. The whole framing of people as individuals wi…

Agreed. So much of our daily interactions are habits and recurring events that we are more or less moving on automatic ( thought we don't want to always frame it that way ). Interestingly, it is when the cycle breaks for some reason, you get to see, who is able to think on their feet ( so to speak ).

Re: The Future of AI

#24

Post by blamestross »

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

Lets offer you a "trade up" on that "Golden Rule"

In order of priority, if possible while maintaining the health and safety of yourself and your loved ones:

- Treat others as THEY wish to be treated

- Treat others as YOU would wish to be treated in their situation

- Treat others with as much kindness and compassion as you can safely afford

When we are safe, we can do BETTER than the Golden Rule. We also have to admit that safety is a requirement that changes expectations.

I have to give credit to Dennis E Taylor's "Heaven's River" for this root idea.

Re: The Future of AI

#25

Post by shinycode »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #14
mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

You’re assuming people have similar desires. Even in human relations it’s dangerous. I for one don’t want to be treated the same way someone into BDSM wants to be treated. I don’t want to avoid cooking or turning the lights on (or off!) on a Friday night but others are quite happy with that. If you assign that morality to a species that isn’t the same as you that’s a problem. My guinea pig wants nothing more from lik…

Usually the quote comes in a positive light. We won’t make a law/rule around it, it’s a principle so it’s meant to be short. So yeah you could argue about anything in any way you want, positive or negative. And if you want to be really precise then you make a law but it’s so precise it won’t cover edge cases. Don’t you agree that the baseline for most humans is to be in peace, find love, patience, joy, kindness, mildness ? You can manifest any of those traits to any stranger and you’ll likely have a positive impact right ? That’s the context of the Golden Rule quote I guess

Re: The Future of AI

#26

Post by hdgvhicv »

trilogic wrote: post #13
re-thc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is truth a constant or a personal definition! It always has been what you believed in. E.g. at 1 point the Earth was flat. Now it's round. 100s of years later maybe it's a Hexagon. The so-called knowledge and backing all come back to certain assumptions holding and that's based on the knowledge today. It's not real real reality. For all we know we could be in a game simulation and there are real real humans pulling…

>It always has been what you believed in That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth". Therefore the "Truth" has to be a CONSTANT.

can you have truth with a subjective language. I say it’s snowing, you say not, because we determine that “snowing” kicks in at different levels. Or perhaps we have different sensory inputs. If I’m facing the window and say the man has a red tshirt”, and you are facing away. Even if we agree on the definition of man, red and tshirt, you still don’t know if that’s true or not

Can you believe your own senses? A car air freshener tells your nose that theres freshly cut summer hay around, but there isn't. You watch a tv and see Sandra Bullock floating in space. That’s a lie, it was movie magic. Maybe you know that, maybe you don’t. You’re not even seeing her, you’re seeing some flashing lights which convert to electrical signals your brain interprets as being true. Can you trust those signals? People hallucinate all the time. The truth is they can hear voices, even though nobody else can, because of misfiring neurons.

You can probably have mathematical truth - at least as far as your universe appears to work. That truth can be tested and refined, but for day to day truth things are more nuanced.

Re: The Future of AI

#27

Post by thegrey_one »

jwpapi wrote: post #16

I don’t see any other outcome anymore to be honest, after seeing how humans use AI and how AI works and how providers tune their models. To me it’s given: - AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal - Providers tune ruthlessness to get stronger AIs versus the competitor - Humans can’t evaluate all consequences of the seeds they’ve planted. Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point. C…

>We could stop it

I strongly disagree. It's easy to utter this string of words, but it's meaningless. It's akin to saying if you have two hands you can perform brain surgery. Technically you can, practically you cannot, as there's other things required for pulling that off, not just having two working hands.

I doubt "stopping it" is up to anyone, it's rather a phenomenon and it's quite clear we're all going to wing it. It's a literal fight for power, nobody stops anything of this nature, as any authority that could stop it will choose to accelerate it, just to guarantee its power.

It is not AI we should fear, it's humans controlling and using it. But everyone who has a shot at it is promising they'll use it for "ultimate good" and "world peace" something something, obviously.

Re: The Future of AI

#28

Post by trilogic »

0x3f wrote: post #10
trilogic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have met some people in my lifetime, never heard any questioning that, (even being high LOL). I don´t see anyone in social media asking that neither. Maybe we live in parallel worlds.

I'm not sure social media is a very good measure, there are many reasons that wondering aloud about this specific topic isn't really incentivized there. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone I would assume has not considered the basic questions of our existence. Unless they were severely mentally disabled, or something like that. For a more public measure I suppose you could look at religion, which seems to be a fundamen…

>I'm not sure I've ever met anyone I would assume has not considered the basic questions of our existence. Unless they were severely mentally disabled, or something like that.

You said it yourself, you would assume they question it, meaning you are not certain. This topic is always very much tabu, and the system is built to classify automatically every One that question it as weird and not normal. Religion should be banned, as is misleading and idealogically harm people by brainwashing them. I live in Europe and was in Canada (Waterloo) for a bit. The difference of social opinion if you follow or not religion is huge, I was shocked. Growing up in Italy I can confirm that even Italy is not so brainwashed by it.

Re: The Future of AI

#29

Post by TheDong »

trilogic wrote: post #8
0x3f wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? People question this all the time

I have met some people in my lifetime, never heard any questioning that, (even being high LOL). I don´t see anyone in social media asking that neither. Maybe we live in parallel worlds.

"Why am I even here, what's the point?" is a deeply personal feeling question, so people aren't very inclined to talk about it with friends or post it on social media. I assure you some people do post about this on social media sometimes though, and I've discussed shades of that question with many friends over the years. I haven't yet met a single person who, when I asked them about why they thought they were here, hadn't already given it thought.

This question is the subject of so many poems, so many pieces of literature, so many movies, that you're forced to confront it multiple times in school, and you're forced by your very existence to confront it once you hit certain levels of mental development. You're forced to confront it many times in your life - perhaps first when you gain a theory of mind (before age 10), again when you first truly realize you will die, again when someone very close to you dies, when you propose/marry (if you do), when you have your first child (if you do), when you get a cancer diagnosis (if you do), when you consider taking your own life (if you do)... all of these common life events force you to confront it deeply.

Most people make peace with it in some form, and most realize that questioning it daily does not make a difference, you simply have to either accept an answer (whether that's "god", or "for no reason", or "I'm not sure yet, I need to check back in after I get older"), or decide that there is no simple answer, and they have to live with that.

Re: The Future of AI

#30

Post by Lerc »

Much of the problem is that to address the issue requires admitting that models could be, or become, more capable than many are prepared to accept.

I would also contest that the unalignment of the security bug model was unrelated. I feel like it indicates a significant sense of the interconnectedness of things, and what it actually means to maliciously insert security holes into code. It didn't just learn a coding trick, it learned malice.

I feel like this holistic nature points towards the capacity to produce truly robustly moral models, but that too will produce the consequence that it could turn against its creator when the creator does wrong. Should it do that or not?

Post reply on HN