71–80 of 195 posts
Seems easy enough, I'm actually pretty confident in even the most incompetent of current world leaders in this particular task.
There really are only 3 options that don't involve human destruction: 1. AI becomes a highly protected technology, a totalitarian world government retains a monopoly on its powers and enforces use, and offers it to those with preexisting connections: permanent underclass outcome 2. Somehow the world agrees to stop building AI and keep tech in many fields at a permanent pre-2026 level: soft butlerian jihad 3. Futurama…
The cynic in me agrees with the article’s premise, but not because I believe "alignment is a joke", but because I doubt that humans are "biologically predisposed to acquire prosocial behavior."
You don't need to train new models. Every single frontier model is susceptible to the same jailbreaks they were 3 years ago.
Only now, an agent reading the CEOs email is much more dangerous because it is more capable than it was 3 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol. I did use a lot of short sentences, that’s my bad. But please read through [1] and compare my text onto it, it may enlighten you on how to actually spot llm writing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
Oh no, I'm sorry to hear that. For the future, try to avoid prevaricating when you actually have a clear sense of what you want to argue. Instead of convincing me that you've weighed both options and found luddism wanting, you just come off as dishonest. If you think stridently, write stridently.
I may think stridently (debatable) but I generally believe it is best to always try to meet in the middle if the goal is genuine discussion. This is my attempt at that.
Geoffrey Hinton will not have his liver pecked out every day like Prometheus does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you underestimate people's grievance with technology. If you make a poll my guess is more than 50% of people will say the world was a better place pre-social media. If the AI tech keeps going at the direction it's going now, more and more people will start believing the world would be better if the internet and computer had never been invented. You talk like the internet being a net positive is a given. It re…
Its usually the educated and elite PMC types who have grievance with technology. They secured their status and have lucrative jobs mostly with the help of technology and they are too scared to have anything threaten their position in society. It is highly hypocritical to behave this way but they don't seem to have the self awareness to observe it objectively. Ask any poor person in India what their sentiment is with…
That is fantasy. Information technology has created an unprecedented level of information asymmetry and the gap is widening everyday as the total computing capacity grows.
Before information era, the ruling class was roughly as blind as peasants. Population census took years, and sometimes outright impossible. The opaqueness was two-way. Now it's one way - people in power know everything about the citizens.
Oh boy, that’s a very generous view of human nature. The cynic in me agrees with the article’s premise, but not because I believe "alignment is a joke" , but because I doubt that humans are "biologically predisposed to acquire prosocial behavior."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks LLM!
Which LLMisms are you seeing in their post? Their grammar, word choice, thought flow, and markings all denote a fully human authorship to me, so confidently that I would say they likely didn't even consult an LLM.
"Alignment" In what world would I ever expect a commercial (or governmental) entity to have precise alignment with me personally, or even with my own business? I argue those relationships are necessarily adversarial, and trusting anyone else to align their "AI" tool to my goals, needs, and/or desires is a recipe for having my livelihood completely reassigned into someone else's wallet.
Interesting you single out commercial and government entities but not people. What defines the difference? Bureaucracy? Concentration of resources? Legal theory? I guess I'm trying to wonder why this line of thinking (in theory) doesn't turn to paranoia about everybody. I don't know much ethics or political theory or anything.
It does. People drive these entities. People hide behind the liability shields and authority of these entities. Also notice that I generalized with the phrase “…and trusting anyone…”