Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#161

Post by Aurornis »

ks2048 wrote: post #61

> Like we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t, and like many Americans who have come before, I’m willing to give my life to fighting for it. This is a very simplistic view. "Freedom" isn't binary. In most of "land of the free", I can't even sit on a park bench and drink a can of beer. Yes, this is just a small example of a personal freedom - and not an important, cherished freedom like his examples (freed…

> In most of "land of the free", I can't even sit on a park bench and drink a can of beer.

Freedom doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want with property that isn’t yours.

You can sit on your own bench on your own property and drink a beer.

The people of the city can decide that they don’t want people using the taxpayer funded public benches used for that.

Other cities do allow it.

But freedom doesn’t mean anyone gets to do anything they like anywhere they want. We have another word for that: anarchy. It’s a different thing and you don’t actually want it, because there are a lot of people who would do much worse things to you than drink beer on your bench if they were free to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted to do it.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#163

Post by medler »

drdaeman wrote: post #25
medler wrote: post #16

Strange way to structure an argument. He seems to be arguing in favor of local models, but most of his examples are reasons local models are bad.

How’s that “skipping vendor bloatware to get the printer working” example is bad? Once upon a time that situation got us the whole Free Software movement going.

That’s the one out of three that’s not bad

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#164

Post by ericpauley »

lilerjee wrote: post #38

No central idea, and somewhat chaotic But the one argument is right: > Reality has lots of finicky details. I would like to see the authors of this document try to change a bike tire. Even with a superintelligent ChatGPT, I suspect they would struggle. Details can kill AI, causing them useless or wrong directions.

Am I missing something here? Bike tires are pretty much the easiest tires to change. You don’t even really need irons and it involves a few very basic steps.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#165

Post by rmbyrro »

ericpauley wrote: post #164
lilerjee wrote: post #38

No central idea, and somewhat chaotic But the one argument is right: > Reality has lots of finicky details. I would like to see the authors of this document try to change a bike tire. Even with a superintelligent ChatGPT, I suspect they would struggle. Details can kill AI, causing them useless or wrong directions.

Am I missing something here? Bike tires are pretty much the easiest tires to change. You don’t even really need irons and it involves a few very basic steps.

And our robots still look far from capable of changing bike tires...

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#167

Post by SiempreViernes »

Aurornis wrote: post #160
mlinsey wrote: 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…

> The AI can and should refuse it. This leads to LLMs refusing to do security work for anyone, because it can’t tell if it’s being done for good or evil purposes. Which is precisely what we’re going through right now with frontier models and it’s terrible. These proposals always assume some perfect mechanism for identifying the thought crime with triggering on the normal requests. The people who want to commit crimes…

> This leads to LLMs refusing to do security work for anyone, because it can’t tell if it’s being done for good or evil purposes.

Oh no, of only we had some sort of ideas about automated authentication and authorisation! (If big AI actually make a model that would reliably reject dangerous queries in the first place, they can just use auth tech to serve the current ones to vetted customers)

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#168

Post by JumpCrisscross »

operatingthetan wrote: post #18
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #3

Yep, that's horrifying. Imagine LLMs not just denying information about, to intentionally choose a hot button example, abortions but also invisibly logging a black mark against the asker for thoughtcrime/precrime because the current ruling party has baked their ideology into law. [EDIT] Imagine subtle injection of biases into responses that support the agenda of the current ruling party and failing to include any cou…

I find it strange how seldom the privacy aspects of LLMs come up. Some people are feeding Google, OpenAI, or Anthropic almost literally every topic they think about during the day. Those companies could just use another LLM to find people likely to commit a crime, and then you have the Minority Report in real life.

> strange how seldom the privacy aspects of LLMs come up

Isn't this Dr. Karp's entire rant of the month?

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#169

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mortenjorck wrote: post #66
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #3

Yep, that's horrifying. Imagine LLMs not just denying information about, to intentionally choose a hot button example, abortions but also invisibly logging a black mark against the asker for thoughtcrime/precrime because the current ruling party has baked their ideology into law. [EDIT] Imagine subtle injection of biases into responses that support the agenda of the current ruling party and failing to include any cou…

I would have been very hesitant to run the “just killed wife“ test given that ChatGPT will indeed flag your account and if a certain threshold is crossed, escalate to humans, who will presumably contact authorities to avoid this happening again: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq6je7e80r7o Obviously a certain percentage of the user base is running lurid hypotheticals through the system all the time, but I don’t dou…

> ChatGPT will indeed flag your account

Oh no, I'll have to spin up a new e-mail address...

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#170

Post by SiempreViernes »

Borealid wrote: post #79
mlinsey wrote: 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…

"The AI" cannot "refuse" any more than a hammer can refuse. If you use a hammer to kill someone, you commit a crime and the hammer is unprosecuted. If you design a hammer to kill people and then give it away, you are partially liable for the deaths it causes. If you make a normal hammer and someone uses it to kill, you bear no blame. I don't see why these standards should change when the hammer also emits text messag…

Big AI aren't selling hammers though, they are renting them out. And if you rent a hammer to someone asking how hard to you need to hit someone over the head to kill, you are likely to be found liable.
Post reply on HN