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

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#81

Post by pixl97 »

Lerc wrote: post #30

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 tr…

>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 have a saying for this behavior.

We will never prove AI is intelligent.

We will only prove humans are not.

Re: The Future of AI

#82

Post by pixl97 »

thegrey_one wrote: post #34
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: 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 cultures around it. The rules we go by are based on our strengths and weaknesses. They can at most apply to ourselves, and to other forms of life that share certain things with…

You can barely throw these rules on humans as the first thing we do is dehumanize anything that's not in some very tiny classification (depending on the scope of our power, the more powerful we are the smaller it gets).

Re: The Future of AI

#83

Post by pixl97 »

gmerc wrote: post #12
0x3f wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never found anyone successfully argue against it. I think what you mean is you've never found a rule you personally prefer more, based purely on vibes. Which is all moral knowledge can ever be. It's easy to argue against the golden rule anyway, from many angles, depending on your first principles. The simplest is: How I would like to be treated is not necessarily how they would like to be treated.

Most of MAGA is "thread on me daddy", so I think you really got a point here.

There are very large portions of societies that believe class systems are the way it should be, even if they aren't on the top, as long as they have someone below them.

Re: The Future of AI

#84

Post by pixl97 »

thegrey_one wrote: post #21
hdgvhicv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 number…

Nothing is clear with humanity. The very first thing we do as a species is dehumanize anyone we disagree with.

Re: The Future of AI

#85

Post by Animats »

We have unaligned AIs now. They're called corporations.

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” - Milton Friedman, 1970.[1] That article, in the New York Times, established "greed is good, greed works" as a legitimate business principle.

Most of the problems people are worried about with AIs are already real problems with corporations.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr...

Re: The Future of AI

#87

Post by darkerside »

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.

Have you raised this question with others, or do they think the same about you?

Re: The Future of AI

#88

Post by BostonFern »

johnpdoe1234 wrote: post #68
BostonFern wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure I agree. One cannot (in most of the planet) go to the supermarket and buy an M16 and a box of hand grenades, or get a hold of a couple of kg of plutonium cause they want some free energy at home. We also have rules in place of what one individual/company can and cannot do from the point of view of the greater good. I cannot go and kill my neighbour for my benefit (or purposefully destroy his life) without co…

That’s a fair objection. Having ruminated on it some more, I’ll admit it might be tenable.

As for achieving an effective ban, occupational collapse might be the stronger motivator once workplace adoption broadens and accelerates, but risk of epistemic collapse might register sooner among the general public, already broadly suffering slop.

Like Bill Gates, I wonder why it’s not yet become a theme in mainstream politics.

Re: The Future of AI

#89

Post by dsf2g »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #67
dsf2g wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Today people have pure unquestioned faith in both" Not true at all. We accept the risks to obtain benefits but we also know having an accident in the air or in elevators is highly unlikely given what we know; so therefore its perfectly rational behaviour.

Nonsense that would assume that your average person has any concept of the relative statistics and has a sense of making decisions based on statistics People make decisions based on what other people around them are doing this is well known in safety engineering in architecture and civil engineering which is why you have standards for egress doors because left of their own devices humans will follow crowds to their o…

One does not need to know of relative statistics to know that a) you dont see planes randomly dropping out of the sky on a regular basis b) people enjoy flying to hot destinations and are willing to accept the small chance the flight may not be risk-free - people are aware of this when they experience some level of turbulence when flying.

Finally, Ive seen plenty of your posts on here. You write with a particular tone. Who are you? A nobody who's spent a lot of time posting crap on here.

Re: The Future of AI

#90

Post by AndrewKemendo »

dsf2g wrote: post #89
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense that would assume that your average person has any concept of the relative statistics and has a sense of making decisions based on statistics People make decisions based on what other people around them are doing this is well known in safety engineering in architecture and civil engineering which is why you have standards for egress doors because left of their own devices humans will follow crowds to their o…

One does not need to know of relative statistics to know that a) you dont see planes randomly dropping out of the sky on a regular basis b) people enjoy flying to hot destinations and are willing to accept the small chance the flight may not be risk-free - people are aware of this when they experience some level of turbulence when flying. Finally, Ive seen plenty of your posts on here. You write with a particular ton…

I’m curious if you can actually describe the tone
Post reply on HN