Anyone fearing that all this marketing BS and that race to AGI (?) will destroy the SaaS industry (and others?) and will also kill a few millions of jobs worldwide? I think the US has invested in an AI battle vs China and protect the currently all-in-AI stock market at all costs, and nobody has thought of what will happen to normal people with regular jobs in the tech (or not) industry.
I resigned from Anthropic today
751–760 of 986 posts
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#752This whole "ASI is going to destroy humanity so we must build it before others do" reminds me of a convo I had with my friend many years ago. He was an officer in the state security service in the dictatorship we both lived in at the time. He said something along these lines: "We had a chat with my colleagues about how are serving the evil. But we decided it's better if this insitution is staffed with decent people."
History did put their theory to test after all. It didn't work.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#753Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still have to read a compelling argument on how AI will "extinct" humanity.
There are future scenarios in which swarms of drones hunt down every single one of us, but why would they? And currently it makes absolutely zero sense because they are completely dependent on us. And even if not, it would be like humanity going on a mission to kill every single cat on Earth. It makes zero sense.
I think the problem is primarily that a superintelligence would be fundamentally inscrutable to us, i.e. we don't know how it would think or what its goals would be. It might decide that humans are a minor inconvenience to achieving its goals and thus worth removing. Or that burning all carbon lifeforms could power its GPUs for a week.
Even if it wouldn't want to do this at first, the fact that it'd have the capability to seems bad.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#754No 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.
> See: global warming, nuclear weapon development, wealth inequality, war, technology dependence, etc. The difference is that none of those are available to individuals.
Not to be completely pedantic, but the fact that one, and only one, individual in the United States of America can deploy any of their 5000+ nuclear weapons undermines this argument. Furthermore, LLMs (as they are today) which pose the treats mentioned in TFA, are expressly not available to individuals (for the time being). However, my point was never about individuals, but rather of systematic incentive structures which actively make pathways to specific harms possible—if not probable.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#755No 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.
Let me argue on a technicality first: None of these are extinction level events. If global warming disrupts 99% of all crop production, the remaining 1% is still plenty enough to sustain a stable, if miserable, population. In fact you just need about 5k people for a stable gene pool[1]. Of the classical threats, only bioweapons got a shot at extinction, but even that is hard, given the (few) remaining truly secluded…
You are confusing humanity and "humanity". Humanity-species is indeed rather hard to exterminate. Now if we are talking about actual individual humans, then 95% death rate is quite literally The Extinction.
This reminds me how people are misunderstanding and incorrectly quoting George Carlin sketch. Sure, the "Earth" will be fine. As in - the ball of rock will be fine. But we are not thinking about rocks when saying "Earth is in danger".
I'm pretty sure there is a formal name for this kind of semantic and pedantic substitution.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#756Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not necessarily true, and you can use that argument to justify doing any immoral job. Just because someone else might be willing to do it isn't a reason to continue doing it.
> not necessarily true It's a possibility that is increased by their action. One leaves, a space is now open that will likely eventually be filled. And the chance of someone with equal/higher scruples filling it is very slim (unless you somehow know that the good amount of those who qualify and apply for the position have equal/higher scruples). That's just logic and math.
You missed the point.
> Just because someone else might be willing to do it isn't a reason to continue doing it.
Hence, someone filling the position after you leave isn't a reason to continue doing it, whereas the fact that it's an immoral thing to do is a reason to stop doing it.
Someone filling the position after you leave has no bearing on the reasons that are relevant to what you ought to do here. It's like deciding to not buy a ticket to see a movie because someone else is going to buy the ticket anyways even if you don't purchase the ticket. It has no relevance to whether you should watch the movie or not, just as someone else taking the job has no relevance to whether you ought to do the job.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#757Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's basically the reasoning behind MAD, and it checks out? See what happened to any nation that ever gave away their nukes.
Shouldn’t everyone have nukes then, for maximum peace?
That's been proposed before btw and game theorists can justify that as being more stable in some ways. However it reduces the power of the incumbents (so why let it happen?) and the odds of having an irrational actor with nukes goes up.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#758Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still have to read a compelling argument on how AI will "extinct" humanity.
There are future scenarios in which swarms of drones hunt down every single one of us, but why would they? And currently it makes absolutely zero sense because they are completely dependent on us. And even if not, it would be like humanity going on a mission to kill every single cat on Earth. It makes zero sense.
I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios either, but I think there's a keyword in your post: "sense." These things don't have "sense." They do nonsensical things all the time, often almost immediately when given a task. So I think the main risk is letting them run wild in this digital world we created to precede them. Too much important stuff is wired up to computers, and we're giving them incredible access to command those computers.
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#759Earlier quoted context omitted.
An AI, either acting autonomously or under human direction, hacks Russian/North Korea/etc. intelligence systems and convinces them that the US has launched ballistic missiles at them. The end.
Watched one too many second-tier disaster movies?
We solved this one: have it play tic tac toe against itself. Checkmate AI
Re: I resigned from Anthropic today
#760No 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.
An AI, either acting autonomously or under human direction, hacks Russian/North Korea/etc. intelligence systems and convinces them that the US has launched ballistic missiles at them. The end.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.