631–640 of 907 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are things that pose potential harm to great fractions of humanity (multiple billions of people) but none of them poses any threat to the actual extinction of all humanity.
Neither does an LLM model.
Things will be bad, unless someone does something to stop it. Will anyone do that? We don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What cooperation are you referring to?
...people to move to the poles/into caves/beneath the ocean/whatever Cooperation required for the purported mass migration of civilization. Admittedly, I assumed you meant it would be civil, but perhaps that should be excluded from the priors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Non-example 2: There are worries about AI-facilitated biological weapons. I haven’t seen any evidence that’s happening. I think this is a good example of poor risk management reasoning. there is evidence bioengineering is already happening. No, nobody is going to announce when somebody has decided to use these tools (even if isn’t an LLM) to bioengineer a weapon. Are the tools power enough to do so? Not sure. But I…
People have had the capability to spread already existing biological weapons for decades. Sometimes they even do (anthrax in the post). What’s changed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you allow me to also tap into fiction and creative writing. I think people generally underestimate how much change a small "dedicated" group of people can achieve if morals are considered optional. A lot of the debate on AI and its consequences is built on various assumptions that all kinda take the status quo (apathy, regulatory capture, but also laws) and take that as a given. History - like e.g. the third reich…
I don't know if you're right or not, but this is the kind of thinking about what might happen that is needed - can you write up a more concrete fiction of this? The whole thing feels unreal to nearly everyone - the only tangible write-up I've seen was in Plan A. I don't think people have thought through the good scenarios tangibly, never mind the bad ones.
I can't really provide a full picture here as I just make stuff up as I go, but the first word that came to my mind when reading your question was "atomization".
Not sure what my brain wants to tell me with that, though.
It might be one of the prerequisites for the current state. It might be what changes for greater change to quickly snap into existence. Or it might also be brainfart.
Not sure if a quick answer like this is helpful, but maybe there will be a longer answer later. Or not. The brain works in mysterious ways.
__
Hmm. It might be that the mechanisms that have been pushing said atomization could perhaps break down due to the reward systems breaking down.
And then suddenly collectives violently snap back together like these neodymium magnets that make that fun sound.
Which, in more concrete terms, could possibly be translated as "people might get so sick of everything, they prefer logging off and talking to their neighbors instead". Although that is a translation that comes with resolution loss.
___
Another thread to pull on here is that AI hyperinflates all sorts of things like fake merit or similar.
So stuff like virtual internetpoints driving people might not continue working.
Or if AI steals all our jobs as proposed, then maybe people will not take the monetary system in which AI wins seriously anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are things that pose potential harm to great fractions of humanity (multiple billions of people) but none of them poses any threat to the actual extinction of all humanity.
Neither does an LLM model.
This is the explicit plan of OpenAI and Anthropic.
To anyone doubting what AI could do humanity, just think about what a well-engineered virus could do. Currently, if a government ordered a special virus with Ethnicity-based targeting, a 2-year timer, and castration-effects instead deadly-effects — it wouldn’t be possible. Human engineers would push back or sabotage the effort out of moral duty. Even if they cooperated, it’s too advanced for a team of humans to actua…
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.
Unlike most other commenters, I applaud him for acting on his principles. If you sincerely believe that, of course you should act. You might not succeed, but your voice might be the one that tips the scales and starts a broader movement. This doesn't mean I agree with him. The fears of doomsday caused by rapid takeoff have been with us since day 1 and the mechanism is always basically "AI invents magic that sets it f…
To borrow on the 1990s Slashdot meme: 1. Invent transformer architecture. 2. Scale it up. 3. ??? 4. Machines become sentient and kill us all. OpenAI and Anthropic pinky promise that they have figured out #3 and they're not BSing just to get more funding, no. But because we live in a culture of fear, everyone eats it up no questions asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a model that achieves the following: - Escape sandbox - Reproduce itself - Find a way to run a financially profitable business (maybe with a meat and bones puppet somewhere in-between) - Setup or buy a social network - start manipulating public opinion on that network to support legislation allowing AI to * operate businesses * setup legal entities * purchase weapons * donate to political parties * setup pr…
This is complete fantasy, though I would be interested in reading a book about this.
The scary stuff is yet to come. The department of war is talking g openly about bombing China if they get ahead of us I. The AI race.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think people should continue developing AI up until the point that there is evidence that AI is facilitating biological weapons development? I think we should stop before then. But that necessarily means that there will not be evidence at the time that we stop.
This is rubbish. By that token, computer development is also facilitating biological weapons development. A better MacOS (or Windows, I don't know) leads to better weapons. They should clearly stop developing computers and OSes. Developers of nice test-tubes are also facilitating bioweapons. Your local O-ring manufacturer, your local medical-grade freezer manufacturer etc. are all culpable. The problem is the bioweap…