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

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#111

Post by cadamsdotcom »

Alignment is fragile; this is demonstrated by how complex society is. One minor perturbations like decreasing police oversight leads to wildly different outcomes on metrics we care about, like not having to be afraid of getting randomly murdered. Our demons must be put down constantly. Nothing about this will ever change, no matter how much we educate the children.

That said I think this is overblown. In 2026 a bunch of awful social media companies dominate the landscape and benefit from the bottom feeders populating feeds with generated content; that’s a big cause of the erosion of trust. In a healthier landscape there would be viable anlternatives and that’d allow experimentation - stuff like attestation of your posts’ provenance, and the like.

We’ll get there, I just think online is in the “robber baron” era, where a few monopolists have captured the market. But you can see the cracks emerging with open source and self hosting and EU regs and EU government procurement and talk of regulating algo feeds. It’s many years away, so your best bet for now is to avoid feeds, touch grass, hang in group chats, and don’t let yourself get too cynical.

Re: The Future of AI

#112

Post by Muhammad523 »

leonvoss wrote: post #109
Animats wrote: post #85

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…

from my POV, other alleged humans are p zombies and might as well be unaligned AIs. The "united states" giving me a list of commands and an AI king doing the same is no different to me phenomenologically

If the "United States" gives you a command, it may be evil. But there's still reasoning behind it. If an "AI King" gives you a command, well, it's simply guessing the next word in a sentence. In both cases you get a command, but they differ in how they were made.

Re: The Future of AI

#113

Post by Muhammad523 »

dsf2g wrote: post #62
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…

Disagree somewhat. A human with no exposure to information and taught techniques on how to produce outputs to achieve desirable outcomes? Yes stupid. A human who once had this exposure, but no longer engages with the brain due to a machine providing access said output? Yes, that person becomes stupid. The problem is much of how one protects oneself in the modern world is not phyiscal-prowess, it is intellectual-prowe…

I agree. I have been using ai since it dropped, but stopped last year. One thing i notice is that i can now articulate my thoughts better; i can write and have a discussion without ai completing (and poisoning) what i think

Re: The Future of AI

#114

Post by Muhammad523 »

dtj1123 wrote: post #105
dsf2g wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Attacking the person rather than their argument only serves to make your argument look weaker.

I agree. This looks rather childish.

Re: The Future of AI

#115

Post by leonvoss »

Muhammad523 wrote: post #112
leonvoss wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from my POV, other alleged humans are p zombies and might as well be unaligned AIs. The "united states" giving me a list of commands and an AI king doing the same is no different to me phenomenologically

If the "United States" gives you a command, it may be evil. But there's still reasoning behind it. If an "AI King" gives you a command, well, it's simply guessing the next word in a sentence. In both cases you get a command, but they differ in how they were made.

You're really charitable to the "United States." There is approximately no reason behind what it does for the most part, it's just an AI made out of biological serfs.

Re: The Future of AI

#116

Post by 4b11b4 »

pixl97 wrote: post #71
4b11b4 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You need to go back and research AI safety long before LLMs were a thing. Any complex goal driven system will have outcomes that cannot be predicted. Saying "it's a mathematical model" belies your ignorance of behavior in complex systems. Very tiny changes in initial conditions can have vastly different outcome in results and you don't have enough entropy in the visible universe to test them all.

Sure I'd also agree with that, some are so complex we can't understand, but that's still our relying on it then
Post reply on HN