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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#271

Post by yoavm »

7373737373 wrote: post #188
yoavm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

How intelligent and autonomous does a murderbot have to become before you stop absolving its creator and seller from any responsibility?

LLM are not murderbots simply because its a very niche use case. They provide some kind of general intelligence, that many of us use daily to vibe code HTML. If the fact that LLMs are also sometimes used to automate killing then humans should be considered murderbots as well, since few of us engage in the activity of killing (and are autonomous & intelligent). Send the blame to our "creator" then?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#272

Post by shaganer »

bko wrote: post #193
traceroute66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer. This is honestly hilarious. Dario must think people are stupid. First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet. They all obtain donations on the basis of "together, we will cure cancer" messaging. They all fund the best science they can. Second, the human body is a complicated thing. You can feed your fancy LLM as many textbooks a…

> First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I think charities exist to exist. They don't have a strong incentive to actually deliver on their mission. Everyone at the org may be fully bought it and obviously want to cure cancer, but as an organization it would fail to deliver on the promise. Like most organisms, their actual purpose is to continue t…

Charity doesn't stop at the cure, but continues to shift with progress.

If a big public charity is able to cure a cancer type (eg. lung cancer), then it's next aim would be to try cure another cancer type. Let's just say they are somehow able to cure all the cancers, and therefore they cured cancer, then there's distribution of the cure, with a focus on 1st world but then it would have to go to developing nations too. Along the way, there may be issues that arise in recovery from the cure, so money towards helping survivors there. Shift goal, shift goal, shift distribution/priority of donations, on and on and on. For the proper charities that do want to meet their goals, something like this is what they'd do.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#273

Post by pixel_popping »

bdangubic wrote: post #215
mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

> This guy says less than politicians do. This is a good thing cause all politicians lie all the time :)

People lie all the time.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#274

Post by haspok »

mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

> We hope to have incredible results

He hasn't learned the correct speak yet. He should instead say that he is _very confident_ that they will cure cancer until the end of the year.

Really, guys, learn from Musk, he is the master of promising everything, but not actually committing to anything.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#275

Post by EMIRELADERO »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #267
vrganj wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership. This is correct. But we don't need to ban AI to avoid the permanent underclass nightmare. It's time for the means of production to be owned communally. It's either a cybersocialist utopia or a neofeudalist dystopia. Rosa Luxemburg formulated it pretty well more than a hundred years ago: Socialism or Barbarism! .

What kind of political leverage do the useless have? This isn't a realistically sustainable outcome. Today, people have leverage because removing them has real economic consequences. With AI, we need to be on the useful side of the divide to have any leverage. And then we'd better hope AI has respect for property rights.

Apathetic mass-murder is unjustifiable, and the ultrarich would need to justify it to their families, who would then need to justify it to other people they know, and so on. And remember that we're talking about the majority of the global population, an event like that couldn't be hand-waved away like one would do for a minority group.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#276

Post by copemaxxxing »

forest32 wrote: post #234
mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#277

Post by cindyllm »

3dsnano wrote: post #227

i’m all for ambition and tenacity, but this is psychopath level communication… blissfully unaware, simply incapable of reading the room if claude still can’t yet write and refactor coherent code (on its own, replacing software engs, just like he said last year), why would we expect it to… fucking cure cancer?

[dead]

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#278

Post by yoavm »

digdugdirk wrote: post #207
yoavm wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake. If it was done by an auto-correct mechanism, would we still say "maybe don't sell your word processor to the army if you can't vouch for its auto-correct system!!!"? Besides, "taking notes" can literally be listing targets, and "getting from A to B" can be the road to killing them.

If the US military purchased camera guided smart munitions with a miscalibrated camera, such that it ignored adult targets and instead specifically targeted children, would that also be a simple mistake per your argument?

If one camera out of thousands has this issue, then yes it's a mistake. If the army doesn't notice it isn't working well after shooting the first child, I'd be learning more towards blaming the army.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#279

Post by Applejinx »

traceroute66 wrote: post #157
eloisant wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides cancer isn't really "a disease" but rather "a family of diseases" that can vary a lot. Even breast cancer can be one of many different cancers. It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases"

> It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases" Don't worry, I'm sure that's his next blog post. Right after Claude has finished solving famine and poverty. ;)

Technically, killing everybody is one way of solving famine and poverty.

How weird that all those humans seem not to trust the logic of their betters ;P

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#280

Post by a2ff6eeb0 »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #275
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of political leverage do the useless have? This isn't a realistically sustainable outcome. Today, people have leverage because removing them has real economic consequences. With AI, we need to be on the useful side of the divide to have any leverage. And then we'd better hope AI has respect for property rights.

Apathetic mass-murder is unjustifiable, and the ultrarich would need to justify it to their families, who would then need to justify it to other people they know, and so on. And remember that we're talking about the majority of the global population, an event like that couldn't be hand-waved away like one would do for a minority group.

Iran just mass murdered their protesters earlier this year, and they needed to convince humans to pull the trigger. It didn't seem to be that hard for them to justify.

It's probably a lot easier to convince the military AIs we're building to do it.

I don't particularly like the situation, but I plan to do what I can to be on the winning side. The world is going to be what we're all in on building, and for people on the winning side it may be a utopia. Either way, I know which side of the gun I want to be standing behind.

Also note that an AI well aligned with the people who initially trained it wouldn't need to actually kill anyone that didn't take action against the owners, it would just need to outcompete people for resources, and let them fend for themselves in extreme poverty. There's no need to act one way or the other beyond that.

Post reply on HN