761–770 of 1001 posts
Earlier 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you aren't claiming that they said GPT-2 was dangerous in the sense that it could disempower humanity, kill all humans, etc. You are just claiming that OpenAI execs said that GPT-2 might "generate misleading news articles, impersonate others online, automate the production of abusive or faked content to post on social media, automate the production of spam/phishing content." Then, what is unreasonable or bad about…
that it was bullshit and they knew it. GPT-2 wasn't capable of anything other than imitating a stroke victim.
If I remember correctly, it seemed like a plausible outcome to me (especially spam and junk social media content). Was there some conclusive evidence that I was missing?
Earlier 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?
Nuke-owning countries' leadership seems to have become more and more unhinged and less rational, predictable, or honorable over time. Putin already threatened to use nukes if the conflict they caused themselves crossed their own border. It didn't happen, but the threat was there. The US' leadership is unhinged and irrational. etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the crux. The big problem is not AGI, it is AGI controlled by, “raised” by the people that control the USA, the predominant psychology of the tech industry culture (“move fast, break things” ring a bell? How about all the “violate hundreds of laws, bribe the politicians to prevent consequences later” type of mentality?). Frankly, we, our culture, this fake America that is parasitized by psychologically narcis…
Capitalism will always promote such people into positions of power, because to be good at capitalism one must have zero empathy including empathy or concern for future generations. Capitalism cannot do otherwise.
Earlier 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?
On the other, Idiocracy turned out to be quite prescient.
(Most likely, we'll have some combination of human stupidity, LLM stupidity, and way too much compute in one place all working together to create a perfect storm of unchecked hacks that break something or other that ends up killing people in an unintended way. Then there's some half-hearted attempt at cleaning things up so that business can proceed as usual in an even more broken world, rinse and repeat.)
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.
If such AI decides that energy spent toward human agriculture (biological food that the AI does not need) is less important than work spent toward storage and production of energy (electricity that the AI needs), then why wouldn't it just try to re-direct resources from the former to the latter. And the AI is some sentient superintelligence, I think it is safe to assume that it will be able to outmaneuver human safeguards.
Obviously that is still just a very hypothetical sci-fi scenario, but the consequences could be very dramatic.
I fail to see how a machine that can hack everything can't also patch everything and make the system unhackable. A nuke, a virus, whatever... The knowledge is nonlonger the bottleneck, it's the tools and materials. Also, I'm extremely skeptical about AI becoming even close to a child in intelligence.
If you are attacking a system, you can try 100 things. If one thing works in getting access, you succeed. If you are defending a system, you must defend against all 100 things. If one thing makes it through, you lose.
I mean… do we have to hold it wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Runaway greenhouse effects on other planets have resulted in surface temps of 400C+
Is there a possible scenario for that on earth, that results in every place on earth having a temperature non survivable by humans?
On whether it's probable, I'd lean towards no but I'm not qualified. The certainty that I read in the parent comment was mainly what I was pushing back against. On a re-read though it's much less certain (either edited or perhaps I massively misinterpreted it the first time around). Runaway implies positive feedback which is hard to gauge, was all I intended to say
Earlier 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?