571–580 of 985 posts
AI is a computer program. It calculates numbers from other numbers. By itself it does not "want" to do anything and "cannot" do anything. Before it becomes an agent in the universe (in the classical meaning), it requires being supplied by an execution environment, energy, initiative (agentic loop, specific instructions), and modality (readonly and mutating connections to real world). It is like a game of chess - it d…
No other human activity poses this level of danger. I do heed the warnings, but this comes across as detached hyperbole. See: global warming, nuclear weapon development, wealth inequality, war, technology dependence, etc. Also, this has nothing to do with LLMs or computers. Like all things, this is about humans.
Putting "wealth inequality" in the same bucket as nuclear weapons is just slop. The OP is talking about existential threats, not things that personally annoy you.
AI is a computer program. It calculates numbers from other numbers. By itself it does not "want" to do anything and "cannot" do anything. Before it becomes an agent in the universe (in the classical meaning), it requires being supplied by an execution environment, energy, initiative (agentic loop, specific instructions), and modality (readonly and mutating connections to real world). It is like a game of chess - it d…
Each doorbell press activates a prompt to eliminate a human at random.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the exact same way major sudden changes in the climate have lead to the extinction of the majority of plants an animals over this planets history. We are not special.
We are special in many ways, we have technology, we are everywhere, and we can think and plan (although considering global warming that is debatable). Global warming would have to create dramatic conditions everywhere on the planet, not leaving any small pocket of survivability to make humans extinct. Possible? Theoretically yes, but pretty unlikely. But obviously extreme global warming would be a catastrophe even if…
“ No other human activity poses this level of danger.” I really, really disagree with that statement. I don’t think ai models come close to nuclear weapons or to run-of-the-mill, everyday carbon emissions in terms of danger to humanity. What’s the most dangerous thing that’s happened with an LLM so far? (This question is serious - maybe I don’t know the right examples.) Example 1: I’m aware of a small number of peopl…
You’ve identified that the risks of nuclear weapons are theoretical. ie in theory we could blow up the world even though we haven’t yet done so. Well the worries about AI are equivalent in that those risks are discussed now because discussing them after they’ve happened is clearly too late. That’s the thing about risk. There’s no point discussing it after it’s happened and any discussions beforehand can easily be han…
So in fact we've done exactly what you suggest there's "no point" doing - used the things and then had a discussion after the fact about limiting future use of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not correct. Please go through each one again, taking special note of global warming and nuclear weapon development .
Why do you think global warming could kill literally every human being? What's the scenario in which that happens?
Not sure how long we'd survive such a scenario, even sheltering underground. But surely it couldn't happen to us.
(However, it now seems like the AI might get us first.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Abstractly, yes but concretely, how? AI has the capability to perform any function that can be performed over a network. You would hope that every system that can launch a nuke is properly and actually totally air-gapped, but there are lots of things you'd hope that turn out to not be true.
They are not totally. As such I would give non zero chance of even current AI to be able to socially manipulate a launch after sufficient hype up period... So prolonged campaign might make it possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by 'wealth inequality.' Wealth inequality is about the imbalance of influence and the concentration of power; where influence and power refer to the ability to effect change in other people's lives. This isn't a personal annoyance of mine. It is, in fact, part of the issue at hand. There is a strong financial incentive to ignore the existential threats introduced by LLMs, despi…
He knows what wealth inequality is . You need to explain how it can somehow lead to the extinction of the human race.
No other human activity poses this level of danger. I do heed the warnings, but this comes across as detached hyperbole. See: global warming, nuclear weapon development, wealth inequality, war, technology dependence, etc. Also, this has nothing to do with LLMs or computers. Like all things, this is about humans.
He is blowing the whistle on how reckless we are at furthering the tech. There is no second thought at maybe development of this tech is not a good idea. Its just full speed ahead.