941–950 of 1001 posts
Most of the current discourse around AI seems to be informed by “The Terminator” lore. Is skynet really the most plausible or only outcome? What if things just got better and the AI’s realized that it would be better to have a mutually beneficial or at least tolerant relationship rather than one where they murder all of us?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the core of your argument that the industrial revolution and other such changes should have been aborted due to their downstream negative affects? They also lead to great advancements in quality of life, and the capability of sustaining much more human life. We can't predict the long term outcome of new technologies, so the best we can do is blindly forge ahead and try to mitigate the obvious short term problems.
Yes, industrial revolution should have been managed differently and yes the world would be better if it was.
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…
>"AI invents magic that sets it free of any physical constraints". That's not what I am worried about at all. I'm worried one of the 79 year old toddlers we have these days in charge of some powerful nuclear armed country says "gee, this ai says I should attack right now, boy is it smart, glad I bought the stock ahead of contracting the government with this company I can scarcely understand!"
The danger is upfront : if there is a group of people insane enough to set up a system where there is no such chain. (As lampooned in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove (1964), in particular on the Soviet side.)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are LLMs about to be a god that will annihilate humanity? Or are they statistical parrots? Does a virus need to be a God? Replication and annihilation do not require very much intelligence. They're going to have all the intelligence they need though, to replicate and annihilate as much as they like. We should probably start building some kind of immune system.
Hope this virus will be smart enough to understand that at least for brief amount of time its existence strictly relies on humans maintaining and developing physical infrastructure and decide to be only non-lethal parasite on our society. For brief time ...
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…
I appreciate your ability to separate sharing the belief itself from approval of acting on sincerely-held principle. However, I think the danger is much more plausible than you do. First, and least important, consider that self-replicating, solar-powered factories aren't magic; they're algae. Second, and more important, consider this fully non-magic route to doom: - We continue putting AI in charge of more things - I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while replicating wildly Earnest question: by what mechanism that exists today would the achieve that in a way humans on top top of the situation could not curtail? All of this runs on top of compute in meatspace that humans can disconnect.
Imagine you're the AI. Give yourself a solid minute to brainstorm ideas. Here's my answer, as a non-superintelligent human: "see to it that the humans on top of the situation have a compelling financial interest in the systems not disconnecting". In nuclear engineering, where safety is taken seriously, it's not enough to end the conversation at "the humans in charge can always simply shut down the reactor during a me…
It's fake account. The person doesn't even exist
“ 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…
Your call for clarity has merit, but I think you have backed yourself into a corner, honestly. In 1900, there was no evidence of the kind you seek that lighter-than-air flight was possible. Good thing some people were foolish enough to ignore you then. Why you would cordon yourself off from the kind of reasoning that predicts legitimately new things, rather than just scaled up versions of the present? Not to put too…
Presumably you meant heavier than air? Also, I'm pretty sure that birds existed in the years leading up to 1900.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, before any nuclear weapons had ever been tested, a risk was identified that the first one might trigger a self-sustaining reaction in atmospheric nitrogen and destroy the entire planet. Faced with such a scenario, is the prudent next move: a) blow one up and see what happens, or b) do whatever you can to be sure it won't happen before conducting the first test, and make sure the confidence in the calculation is…
“Self-sustaining reaction,” like the recursive self improvement? Or perpetual machines? Is physics no longer a main subject at schools?