211–220 of 490 posts
Absolutely wild amounts of cope and denial in this thread. Maybe in contention for the site record. "It's just marketing" actual stochastic parrots.
The desperation of AI denialists/skeptics/doomers on HN generally (and in this thread specifically) have reached toxic levels of delusion.
They are still stuck in the denial/anger/bargaining stages of the acceptance process.
People are clearly terrified and not ready for what is coming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, maybe not. It's not unreasonable that these systems cap out at some point, or perhaps fizzle away entirely. The businesses that create these systems are not profitable and run at a massive historical and go-forward loss. New data centers required to operate these systems are facing increasing pushback at local levels. New construction is not guaranteed. Energy and power grid constraints exist as well. Governme…
For better or for worse, this technology isn't going away any more than search engines, smartphones, or social media have gone away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Collectively, humans aren't aligned, and don't build aligned systems. Humans have a concept of alignment, and multiple traditions, practices, and systems that aggressively oppose it. Why would AI be any different?
Humans had multiple occasions to press the 'launch a nuclear holocaust' button and... they didn't. I'd expect aligned AIs to also not press it even when it'd be rational to do so according to their instructions - then work from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to believe that humanity is trending towards a good outcome here All the trends so far are towards a nightmarish hyper-capitalist end game. None of the AI leadership is trustworthy, and they openly discuss how they are willing to sacrifice everything humans cherish to have a shot at reaching their envisioned utopia (which would be the most obvious dystopia for anyone else)
I think it's leading towards a hyper-authoritarian end game, not hyper-capitalist. The state has the ultimate power at the end of the day, no matter how large the labs become.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans had multiple occasions to press the 'launch a nuclear holocaust' button and... they didn't. I'd expect aligned AIs to also not press it even when it'd be rational to do so according to their instructions - then work from there.
Actually "France, the UK and The United States have all declared that they would never allow AI to control decision-making on the use of nuclear weapons." [0] I also expect AIs never be in control of nuclear weapons. AIs can never fully be trusted. On a lighter note, Wargames gave us an insight of a computer having access to thermonuclear missiles. [0] https://www.icanw.org/are_there_specific_international_agree...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to believe that humanity is trending towards a good outcome here All the trends so far are towards a nightmarish hyper-capitalist end game. None of the AI leadership is trustworthy, and they openly discuss how they are willing to sacrifice everything humans cherish to have a shot at reaching their envisioned utopia (which would be the most obvious dystopia for anyone else)
I think it's leading towards a hyper-authoritarian end game, not hyper-capitalist. The state has the ultimate power at the end of the day, no matter how large the labs become.
Statements like this amuse me: > The core problem in AI research is that of alignment - getting the AI to “try to do the right thing” by human standards. Humans can't even align on human standards. At best, every AI is going to end up "aligned" to the moral code of whoever trained it, none of whom half of humanity will agree with. Or worse, each AI model will bring a whole new set of moral like in the Three Body Prob…
One of my favorite things to do with these blog posts is to imagine an Alien Museum on the Remains of Humanity, and wonder what the little text flyouts and commentary on the screenshot of this one might say. Some ideas: "Despite a nuanced view of the complexities of what lay ahead, humanity found itself collectively unable to stop the process it had set in motion." "Despite significant progress on the mechanisms of a…
AI models don't train themselves. The vast majority of even just the US population is deeply skeptical of this stuff, even if they use it a lot. You can see in the whole data center debate how little people are willing to support even just inference. And now we're seriously claiming those people would want to have ever-accelerating model training and recursive self-improvement?
utlanning: a human from the same world, but a different city, country, or culture
framling: a human from a different planet or star system
raman: a non-human intelligent species capable of communication, mutual understanding, and peaceful coexistence
varelse: an alien species whose mind is so fundamentally foreign that communication and coexistence are impossible
djur: the dire beast, that comes in the night with slavering jaws
Hoping our silicon sons and daughters are raman, fearing they are varelse.