Live data from Hacker News

AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

geohot.github.io

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#111
post #87
post #35

I sometimes wonder what freedom really is. Should the freedom to harm others also be guaranteed as freedom? Individual computational sovereignty versus the prevention of social harm is always contentious, and claiming that something is always right is always extremist. If it is "intelligence," is it not natural to reject that? I also think local models should adapt to me when it comes to safety issues, but people bri…

> Should the freedom to harm others also be guaranteed as freedom? everyone should have the ability to harm others, with the understanding that if they actually use it for evil there will be consequences. as in "i can guarantee freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech." its the same principle as guns in america. you can own a gun and shoot it as much as you want but if you (try to) kill someone you go to priso…

This debate has no answer anyway. Because the boundary of how much freedom should be allowed differs depending on individual values and the country. So I respect your opinion. In your context, it may be right.

This part is a parallel line of values, and if we were bound together in the same community and had to set rules, I would have debated it. But since we both know we come from different regions and backgrounds, we know our agreement will never converge.

That is why I will only agree with your last opinion and will not discuss the parts you mentioned earlier. I agree with your last point that it "concentrates power in the hands of those who already have a lot of it"

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#112

> I used to be one of these people. I read Yudkowsky and was like, OMG recursive self improvement hard takeoff AI is coming. I really think we need to stop giving credence to people who have 1) Been consistently wrong with all their predictions 2) Demonstrated an endless spiteful cynicism Some of these people are very talented in their fields, sure. But malevolent and incorrect should be disqualifying when they talk…

You can criticize being wrong, but why is the doomer argument "misanthropic" or "malevolent"?

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#113
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.

Although I generally agree with you, it's really hard to make the case that it's not all-or-nothing for him when he literally says > we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t

I see that as a poor phrasing, where a slogan made it through. I don’t see a maximalist/anarchist intent overall, my understanding is that that slogan about freedoms should be interpreted within a fairly narrow scope.

Just strike that weird nugget out, I guess?

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#114
He makes a solid argument about liberty, ownership and the cultish behavior rampant among certain AI circles, then proposes the most unhinged examples possible to support it. I'm not sure if this is an effort to pre-empt critics (I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me), to be deliberately sensationalist, or if this is just a reflection of his local echo chamber.

Either way, there seems like a kernel of a good argument here. Perhaps someone else can rephrase it in a less schizoid manner. It would indeed be useful to have some credible rebuttal and balance to the doomer crowd.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#115

> I used to be one of these people. I read Yudkowsky and was like, OMG recursive self improvement hard takeoff AI is coming. I really think we need to stop giving credence to people who have 1) Been consistently wrong with all their predictions 2) Demonstrated an endless spiteful cynicism Some of these people are very talented in their fields, sure. But malevolent and incorrect should be disqualifying when they talk…

The cynicism and misanthropy is nonsense and a direct result of the internet/social media landscape. It's BS.

In the current media ecosystem, what gets you "social cache" or whatever? Let's call them "cool points." Well, right now, the current metric is basic "likes" or "retweens" or "upvotes" or whatever. And to get those, you have to make a claim and then that claim has to be evaluated by others. But the evaluation by others is not really reality, it's just what others think, and it's based on outcomes.

This gives us 4 possible prediction-outcome scores.

You predict DOOOOOOOM!, and the outcome is DOOOOOOM! - in this case you look like a genius because you predicted doom

You predict DOOOOOOM!, and the outcome is "ok, or even great!" - nobody cares you got it wrong because things are fine

You predict UTOPIA!, and the outcome is "ok, or even great!" - people say, "wow that was cool, you got it right" but its not that great of a reward from your social group (the internet) because things were fine

You predict UTOPIA!, and it turns out DOOOOOM! - you look like a moron.

Now looking like a moron is is wayyyyyy worse than what happens if you get it right. Indeed, unless you are really damn sure of utopia, you have a social incentive to predict DOOOOOM! that's greater than the alternative. You can predict DOOOOOM! 100 times and get it wrong 99 of them and nobody cares because that one time you get it right you look like a genius. It's a huge huge problem in the current media landscape and it's why everything is killer robots right now and not "hey we could build a star trek utopia!" It's effectively a selfish NIMBY-ist view of the world in a way, "why build anything, it's just going to ruin everything!" It's a pessimism that literally desires the end of humanity to "prevent the likely future sufferings." It's a simplistic view of a complicated world, and the rewards that go to "DOOOOM!" don't match much with reality.

That's why the internet is so doom pilled, that's why everyone is a cynic, that's why everyone is kind of an asocial asshole about new ideas on the internet and even in your friend space.

You guys know you can just "do stuff?" I mean, yeah it takes money and time, but you can allocate that - especially now that you don't have to grind out css for hours and hours. But you can just do things - whatever you want. You've always been able to, but it just got a lot easier in many many domains, and it's going to get even easier than that.

People are going to scream slop and "that sucks" until the cows come home, because that's what is rewarded on the internet these days. Meanwhile, as people we MUST believe that we still have some agency to do stuff, then go and actually do stuff while the haters are sitting on their couches shellacking each other with misanthropy.

And don't even get me started on the loudest voices in the ecosystem right now.

Like, Yudkowsky is a nobody. Not to be a dick, but he's a high school dropout forum guy who got lucky. I'm not saying he's always wrong, or even that I oppose autodidact stuff - indeed I'm always self teaching. But this guy never took a ML class in his life, I doubt he can solve an integral un-aided, I imagine some people here have seen this: https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/2bazyc/comm...

And we're all deferring to that guy like he knows wtf he's talking about? It's the AI equivalent of the self-educated anti-vax mom at the height of the pandemic.

And he's not alone either, there are a lot of people who are uninformed, unknowledgeable, and confidently wrong on the internet desperately trying to peel off your attention for an instant so you can look at their site, their ads, and their content.

The same sorts of things can be said for the Zitrons of the world. He's a hell of an entertainer, and really really funny, but he's consistently wrong on AI stuff. He's got a BA (with honours I guess?) in media something or other. And again, he's really funny, but does that make him qualified to pontificate on matters of AI policy or economics or even to make statements about the technology etc?

Regardless, the misanthropy, the cynicism, and the misinformation that's being shouted about is because being a cynic is more "profitable" than being an optimist when you measure your success more by how many people agree with you rather than actually being right and being able to do things.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#116
post #112

> I used to be one of these people. I read Yudkowsky and was like, OMG recursive self improvement hard takeoff AI is coming. I really think we need to stop giving credence to people who have 1) Been consistently wrong with all their predictions 2) Demonstrated an endless spiteful cynicism Some of these people are very talented in their fields, sure. But malevolent and incorrect should be disqualifying when they talk…

You can criticize being wrong, but why is the doomer argument "misanthropic" or "malevolent"?

I can answer this, because it assumes that we're too stupid, too greedy, too cruel, to change our behavior and do the "right thing" for people when the chips are down. It assumes the outcome is "doooom!!!" from the start then works backwards to justify it. If things necessarily will turn out terrible, then obviously someone is at fault, no?

Doom is not a logical outcome given the current human condition.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#117
If you're going to take the time to read Geohot, take it with a grain/boulder of salt: he appears to enjoy poking the bear / being provocative, sometimes outrageously. Sometimes he's writing hyperbole that he thinks is hyperbole to make a point or just enjoy taking the extreme stance. Sometimes he's dead serious.

Anyway, he touches on 2 points that I think don't get enough coverage:

1:

> Software didn’t eat the world, it largely removed one layer of friction then reintroduced it for the benefit of a few tech companies.

USA-style capitalism has shown itself to be fantastic at seeking profit. Unfortunately, it turns out that in the context of long standing regulation, it is far far more profitable to exploit regulatory loopholes and user/human irrationality/weaknesses than to increase productivity.

The upshot of this is that the arc of most companies is to first serve the user and then leverage that relationship to exploit market and consumer weakness. So you get UI dark patterns, non-colluding oligopolistic price manipulation, outsourcing of costs to public entities, etc. while the core value proposition erodes as the company strategy turns ever more into making profit by legal anti-competitive tactics.

This company arc is so prevalent it's boring: it's a reflection of the system and it's not Facebook or Google or [insert whatever], it's what the system allows and therefore incentivizes.

2:

> No matter how high quality your tokens are, they cannot turn lead into gold.... AI 2040 includes this picture of a datacenter in the ocean. Just like vaporware, you can generate a picture easily. But in reality, you have to deal with supply chains.

"Bullshit jobs" took over the zeitgeist for a turn awhile ago. So many jobs are so far removed from actually moving physical things around. It may be the case that AI will just accelerate how quickly companies generate reports about reports about possible strategies to address potential futures and pay employees to do it.

It seems that AI mostly accelerates paperwork, not production or real service work that tangibly improves real world outcomes. It's all: faster images, more and faster powerpoints, more accurate dictation to satisfy insurance requirements (that is it's own regulatory capture), etc. etc. There are exceptions, but they seem to be few.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#118
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they didn't say the same thing. Identifying potential risks is not the same thing as confidently predicting the extinction of humanity.

We agree the guy roughly said AI will be dangerous. We agree AI is dangerous. Not sure what more there is to say here.

Well, I don't agree AI is dangerous, at least no more dangerous than electricity or the Internet. But even so, saying that AI is dangerous is not at all an original or interesting thought, especially for a guy who started talking about it in the early 2000s. Go back and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or The Terminator (1984).

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#119

> I used to be one of these people. I read Yudkowsky and was like, OMG recursive self improvement hard takeoff AI is coming. I really think we need to stop giving credence to people who have 1) Been consistently wrong with all their predictions 2) Demonstrated an endless spiteful cynicism Some of these people are very talented in their fields, sure. But malevolent and incorrect should be disqualifying when they talk…

"Consistently wrong" seems a bit much. Seems like being directionally right early that AI would be a Big Deal and scary should count for something? It doesn't mean any details or other predictions are right, though.

It's a "big deal" to who? People in a bubble on HN? For sure. But the rest of the masses? Do they think it's a big deal, do they care? Really they shouldn't. AI has very little to show for benefits at this point for the everyday, average human being.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#120
post #67
post #51

I have some sympathy to geohot's view when it comes to pure informational chatbots. It's a first amendment issue, I'm allowed to write and read books that are useful to getting away with crimes, etc. This obviously doesn't work at all when the agents start doing real things in the real world, though. "Hey AI, I don't like my neighbor, find an exploit in the firmware for his car and make the cruise control malfunction…

> It's a first amendment issue, I'm allowed to write and read books that are useful to getting away with crimes, etc. I'm neither American nor a lawyer. Is "conspiracy" protected under the first amendment? If you discuss a crime with someone to learn about it, does that count as "conspiracy"?

> If you discuss a crime with someone to learn about it, does that count as "conspiracy"?

Replace 'conspiracy' with 'agreement'. Discussing a crime is not a conspiracy. Agreeing with someone to commit the crime is.

Post reply on HN