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

Pacing the frontier

pacingthefrontier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 216 posts

Re: Pacing the frontier

#31

Post by alach11 »

tcdent wrote: post #7

Something people don't seem to see, and not that it's placed directly in front of you, is that pacing the release and adoption of AI is already happening. Cost-per-token determines the economic viability of tasks that AI gets applied to. How many tokens would it take to automate all of the responsibilities of a gas station clerk? Probably more than their hourly wage. Job safe. A slightly larger stretch, that most peo…

I agree with the substance of your comment that token economics pace the diffusion of AI into the labor market. But I think they have a much smaller influence over the pace of the frontier, right?

Re: Pacing the frontier

#32

Post by red_green_yell »

alach11 wrote: post #26

The HN discourse on this subject is incredibly discouraging to me. It's completely nonconstructive. I take the pace of AI development seriously. All of my friends who work at AI Labs take it seriously. It's very easy to make lazy, shallow dismissals that leaders like Dario/Demis/Sam are acting purely out of self-interest. If AI does pose biological risk, or could destabilize geopolitics, or even just poses economic r…

Are they lazy dismissals? Or a simple observation that LLM scaling is hitting diminishing returns way way short of AGI.

If the claim is (1) AGI coming and (2) we should so something about AGI, wouldn't it be smart to confirm (1) before worrying about (2)? Especially if certain companies have trillions of dollars of valuation that depend on society as a whole believing (1)?

Re: Pacing the frontier

#34

Post by brap »

fidotron wrote: post #15

Anyone serious about this should participate in pacing the frontier by quitting their job so as to not potentially contribute to the problematic progress. Be the change you want to see! Curious how that isn't what happens.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

Re: Pacing the frontier

#35

Post by fidotron »

alach11 wrote: post #29
fidotron wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example there is nothing to be gained by not complying. Failing to comply with what is in reality arms control is a widespread occurence. It's notable the only historical way to handle this (Schelling covered it at length) is tolerance of mutual espionage on a level that would simply not be tolerable to any of the groups involved. I should add one of Schelling's other pet subjects was "time to weapon being vi…

Great comment. I haven't read Schelling but will check that out. I think you're right that international cooperation on the topic is likely impossible at present, for the reasons you stated. I'm not sure what it would take to shift the Overton window, but it's probably not pretty.

So honestly Schelling was utterly brilliant. I cannot recommend all three of the books wikipedia classed as his notable works highly enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#Notable_works

There are footnotes in "The Strategy of Conflict" containing more profound insight than whole books that are published today.

On this particular topic though "Strategy and Arms Control" is the one to go for.

Re: Pacing the frontier

#36

Post by dmarcos »

alach11 wrote: post #26

The HN discourse on this subject is incredibly discouraging to me. It's completely nonconstructive. I take the pace of AI development seriously. All of my friends who work at AI Labs take it seriously. It's very easy to make lazy, shallow dismissals that leaders like Dario/Demis/Sam are acting purely out of self-interest. If AI does pose biological risk, or could destabilize geopolitics, or even just poses economic r…

Every single technology in history has had people claiming potential existential risks that didn’t materialize. Burden of proof is on people making the risk claims. Those have to be specific and unique to that technology to grant special actions.

Re: Pacing the frontier

#37

Post by rossant »

alach11 wrote: post #26

The HN discourse on this subject is incredibly discouraging to me. It's completely nonconstructive. I take the pace of AI development seriously. All of my friends who work at AI Labs take it seriously. It's very easy to make lazy, shallow dismissals that leaders like Dario/Demis/Sam are acting purely out of self-interest. If AI does pose biological risk, or could destabilize geopolitics, or even just poses economic r…

This is serious. We're in uncharted territory. The geopolitical context is already complicated enough that we shouldn't be dismissive of such a rapid technological race. I'm glad AI leaders are taking it seriously. I'm surprised so many HN commenters aren't.

On the other hand, I'm pessimistic about initiatives like this being effective on a global scale (though they could certainly work at the national level).

Re: Pacing the frontier

#38

Post by brap »

Has there ever been a case in human history when technology just stopped advancing, simultaneously world wide, only because a bunch of people wanted it to?

I think these people are either incredibly naive, or, more likely, not acting in good faith.

Re: Pacing the frontier

#39

Post by red_green_yell »

areoform wrote: post #10

The first computers were used for war. The Harvard Mark I was used by von Neumann to calculate the physics of implosion. And then right afterwards, ENIAC was used to calculate the feasibility of the H-bomb. They called it the "Los Alamos problem." The first computer network, SAGE (or, Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) brought together RADAR data from across the US with air-traffic control data and military flight da…

I think this is a spot on analogy and would two more: the hand wringing over the release of the printing press and the internet. In both cases the people in power were terrified that the masses would use their newfound power to do dangerous things. In both cases bad things did happen (market bubbles, scams, witch hunts, spread of knowledge on making poisons), but trying to put the cat in the bag by pacing the printing press or the internet would have been a fool's errand, and over the long run both inventions massively improved the lives of society overall.

Re: Pacing the frontier

#40

Post by [deleted] »

fidotron wrote: post #15

Anyone serious about this should participate in pacing the frontier by quitting their job so as to not potentially contribute to the problematic progress. Be the change you want to see! Curious how that isn't what happens.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN