71–80 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans not dying would be an excellent feature for the future to have. Not a hard requirement though, we'll see if there are some story points left in the sprint.
I keep reading about AI killing all humans but I have yet to see a practical scenario where that happens. Somehow everyone is scared of that but nobody can explain exactly how that would happen?
For a superintelligent AI trained with methods anywhere close to what we are doing now, killing all humans is the default outcome. I actually think researchers are downplaying the risks to make their arguments more normie-friendly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear. No other human activity poses this level of danger." - https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476196791709843#m "Development of superhuman mach…
So given that, do you want the Chinese to stop developing AI too?
To all the people whose only opinion on anything that openai does is 'marketing hype', how would you expect them to act if they were making rapid progress and were actually concerned about safety?
If progress is coming easy and fast and you're worried about the danger your product poses, you should also be worried about the danger your competitors' products pose. So, you reach out to governments and ask for rules to constrain and slow things down for everyone, so that your company isn't put at a disadvantage for being cautious.
Thoughts and open (I think) questions: 1. What are we actually talking about, slowing development or slowing public release? I can't imagine the the US is keen to slow actual development when we have adversarial state-backed labs continuing development. Seems to me that this is a global pact or it's nothing. Stopping a single lab, even if it's the current leader, won't put the genie back in the bottle. 2. Unless they…
The problem is with that much debt buried in the report, no one is buying peoples sandbagging nonsense anymore. Even the boring bond market is showing odd behavior much to the chagrin of congress. =3
To all the people whose only opinion on anything that openai does is 'marketing hype', how would you expect them to act if they were making rapid progress and were actually concerned about safety?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a convenient time, just as coding capability seems to reach the upper end of the S curve.
? What world are you living on.
The big psyop/trick is that "AI development has to slow down" and not that we hit limits with the technology or the technology is immature. Either way it's a win-win for whoever sells that message because you make the makers and the warners the center of attention. And when they say "we are considering slowing down" they mean "if we get enough money to slow down we'll do it". And of course they never want you to thin…
The message was directed at the employees. Their work may slow down, but that doesn't imply that all work will slow down. OpenAI also has this technology that purportedly can do the work without employees. In fact, if the employee work isn't starting to slow down then OpenAI has bigger problems given the business model that keeps getting promised to investors.