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

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#51

Post by gyomu »

thegrey_one wrote: post #27
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 i…

Yes, it would be like trying to “stop” gunpowder in 1400 or atomic weapons in 1938. Pandora’s box is open.

Re: The Future of AI

#52

Post by oulipo2 »

jasondigitized wrote: post #46
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…

Why does it have to be doom and gloom. Serious question. When we plant seeds they bear fruit and not all fruit is poison.

Because it's a fruit governed by humans, in the scope of a capitalistic and patriarchal society. And all fruits planted in a capitalistic and patriarchal society are poison

Re: The Future of AI

#53

Post by re-thc »

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.

> That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth".

1st what is to fly? You've already made assumptions i.e. beliefs elsewhere.

You can definitely fly. Try it on a cliff. You might die. You might not go very far. But you can.

Re: The Future of AI

#54

Post by mrshadowgoose »

jasondigitized wrote: post #46
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…

Why does it have to be doom and gloom. Serious question. When we plant seeds they bear fruit and not all fruit is poison.

It's doom and gloom because the underlying game theory forces all state actors into an unbound and irresponsible arms race, consequences be damned.

AI development game theory is extremely similar to the game theory behind nuclear arms development, but worse (nuclear weaponry was born from Human General Intelligence, and is therefore a subset of the potential of AI development). Failing to be the most capable actor could put one in a position of permanent loss of autonomy/agency at the whims of more capable actors.

Re: The Future of AI

#55

Post by AreShoesFeet000 »

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…

That’s a very sober take in my opinion. Intelligence isn’t about neutrally inferring from externally sourced symbols such as the ones who already come from Culture in general. It’s about confronting them with the remaining determinations of your existence and producing a superior consciousness. No novel machine can disrupt this process. If anything the sheer added volume of symbols that can be produced from automated semantic mingling (also referred as to as garbage) will accelerate the process of producing the consciousness that can abstract noise away. Of course this won’t materialize evenly across the board, but is surely circumscribed in the overall tendency of intellectualization of the subjects of culture.

When the moral panic of induced schizophrenia from the use of ChatGPT is presented what’s at stake isn’t the innocent concern over the overall mental health of individuals. It’s about how the fear of radicalization from previously unobtainable ideas being circulated within society. The partial validity of every idea vis-a-vis the radicalizing nature of the current stage of development of our society is explosively disruptive.

I’m not saying that there’s a clear outcome here. The other way around can also apply, but surely this contraption (LLMs in general) will not fade until the society itself is deeply transformed. If that’s good or bad depends on where you stand in the stratified society.

Re: The Future of AI

#56

Post by seanhunter »

re-thc wrote: post #9
trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

> 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…

That’s complete nonsense. The universe doesn’t care what we think.

The earth has always been earth-shaped. We can think it’s flat, spherical, “turnip-shaped”[1] but the universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth doesn’t change shape based on our perception.

[1] Yes some people think this for some reason I can’t fathom

Re: The Future of AI

#57

Post by jwpapi »

4b11b4 wrote: post #45
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…

AI isn't ruthless, that doesn't even make sense. It's a mathematical model, if it's optimizing for the wrong thing then that's strictly the fault of the people who chose what to optimize for

there might be better words to describe that it doesn’t really has the same boundaries we assume it has.

Re: The Future of AI

#58

Post by re-thc »

seanhunter wrote: post #56
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…

That’s complete nonsense. The universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth has always been earth-shaped. We can think it’s flat, spherical, “turnip-shaped”[1] but the universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth doesn’t change shape based on our perception. [1] Yes some people think this for some reason I can’t fathom

> The earth has always been earth-shaped.

And you never needed more than 640KB of RAM [1] right? Your "statement" is based on your knowledge today. You'd be burned for witchcraft back in the days for saying the earth was not flat.

> but the universe doesn’t care what we think

Assuming you know what the universe is. Your theory is based on your limited today knowledge. Someone sometime in the future could say something completely different (just like you talking about those of the past).

[1] famously from 1981

Re: The Future of AI

#59

Post by johnpdoe1234 »

gyomu wrote: post #51
thegrey_one wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 i…

Yes, it would be like trying to “stop” gunpowder in 1400 or atomic weapons in 1938. Pandora’s box is open.

Gunpowder (weapons) and atomic tech (energy, material, weapons) are heavily regulated in most of the planet, as the risks of having free access to them for everyone (company/person) for their own selfish purpose without strong guardrails clearly outweighs the benefits.

The fact that something exists doesn't mean that having it readily available is the only option, particularly if it has potentially disastrous consequences at scale. We are choosing to make it available to everyone fully unregulated, and that is a choice that will prove either beneficial or detrimental to society at some point.

I don't think it is inevitable, I think it is a conscious choice made by a few that have their own and only their own interests in mind.

As a technologist, I am amazed at this tech and see some personal benefits. As a human, I am terrified of the potential net negative effects, and I am having trouble reconciling those two feelings.

Re: The Future of AI

#60

Post by BostonFern »

johnpdoe1234 wrote: post #59
gyomu wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it would be like trying to “stop” gunpowder in 1400 or atomic weapons in 1938. Pandora’s box is open.

Gunpowder (weapons) and atomic tech (energy, material, weapons) are heavily regulated in most of the planet, as the risks of having free access to them for everyone (company/person) for their own selfish purpose without strong guardrails clearly outweighs the benefits. The fact that something exists doesn't mean that having it readily available is the only option, particularly if it has potentially disastrous consequ…

The challenge is that enforcing a ban would presumably require strict incursions into personal freedoms organized at a scale where AI-based solutions would be particularly effective and thus tempting, paradoxically.

On the other hand, assuming the dangers are real, you lose by default if you do nothing.

Post reply on HN