Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

xeiaso.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 417 posts

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#401

Post by flir »

ben_w wrote: post #346
phoghed wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They allegedly believe the technology itself is a nuclear weapon tier threat or greater, so why does it matter which lab they are trying to achieve it at?

They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who control the AI will become a dictator; still more think becoming a dictator is a necessary step to safely prevent anyone else making unsafe AI. Painting them all under one brush is like d…

Ok, so they're uniquely careful, and they also get to that threshold first (whatever it is).

What happens when everyone else (who is not so careful) gets to the same threshold three months later? How does them getting there first stop that happening?

It's an utterly self-serving argument and it's not even internally consistent.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#402

Post by casey2 »

matsemann wrote: post #254
olalonde wrote: post #181

Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.

Well, that's almost a tautology. People claim Y2K or ozone was a panic and that nothing happened. But nothing happened exactly because the force behind the panic also fixed the issues.

That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work.

But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning.

People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#403

Post by vardalab »

lukewarm707 wrote: post #391
user43928 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt most of your claims. Maybe the guardrails and emotional intelligence is true. For speed and efficiency, you are most likely wrong. Speed is led by GPT-5.6 Sol on Cerebras Ultrafast at 750 t/s. Afaik you cannot serve a single DeepSeek Flash 4.1 stream at 750 t/s, plus the model is less intelligent as seen on newer benchmarks. I believe OpenAI and Anhropic are at the frontier of efficiency too. There were numer…

i can provide some sources. 5.6 sol ultrafast on cerebras is 750tps, open models readily exceed this. just by using a smaller model cerebras serves qwen 3.8 27b at 1850tps. or even larger models, mimo 2.5 pro was served for a while at 1000tps. and so on. [ https://inference-docs.cerebras.ai/models/choose-a-model ] the chinese ai companies have 10% of the total compute resources of the US ones. since the USA tries to…

I don’t even think that regular Astra medium is anywhere close to 100 for tg

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#404

Post by ben_w »

phoghed wrote: post #364
ben_w wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who control the AI will become a dictator; still more think becoming a dictator is a necessary step to safely prevent anyone else making unsafe AI. Painting them all under one brush is like d…

> No you see, actually I’m the guy that makes sure that only the Palantir and Mossad get the model that can discover iOS 0 days. I’m standing between us and ruin. Ted over there across the open office, he’s the one actually manufacturing the weapon. You’re thinking of him

You're not even close to passing the ideological Turing test here.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#405

Post by ben_w »

koverstreet wrote: post #378
ben_w wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simultaneously overestimating what was observable in the 70s climate research, and ignoring all the actual research and evaluation test results for AI today. I don't expect people to be familiar with more than "trust me bro", but it's all right there for you to find with a search engine of choice. And, indeed, available for the LLMs themselves to explain to you in interrogative conversation.

Who should I be more scared of? China, which has been doubling down on open transparent research, or the secretive US companies who are in bed with the most unhinged administration we've ever had and has been actively starting wars? They're not proposing anything concrete, and when they do, what do you think the proposal will be? Will OpenAI and Anthropic open themselves for inspection so we can verify they really ha…

Dunno about "should"; personally I am more scared of the US than China here, but I do know how propaganda can be, makes "should" really difficult.

> Will OpenAI and Anthropic open themselves for inspection so we can verify they really have stopped developing these "world ending" technologies?

This is compatible with the language being used, but I suspect they're not going to do that.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#406

Post by nobodyandproud »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #393

The HN discourse on AI is so exhausting. It's all knee-jerk and headlines only. Just people rushing to push their own beliefs and pre-emptively insulting anybody who disagrees. People here are so desperate for the AI race to continue forever, for anything that pisses off the billionaires that got us there even if that means innocent people go down with them because the next AI decides to blackmail a hospital to cheat…

I think both can be true: AI development must be slowed, but also question the motives of those in the lead given the stark benefits it gives those in the lead.

I'll get down-voted again by those who have a stake in this race, but I believe the long-term freedom and benefit for "everyone" will come from being able to run models locally.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#407

Post by ben_w »

Tanjreeve wrote: post #365
ben_w wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of people who think greenhouse gas/global warming campaigns against fossil fuels are "exaggerating", that "earth was warm/the climate changed in the past", that a fee degrees isn't bad, that CO2 is good for plants. Are you likeminded? In this case, it's as if the oil and coal companies all said in the 60s and 70s "oh no, this research we did, it's all really bad; we need help to figure out how to trans…

Funny you should try and spin the conversation off into climate change to avoid answering the question. Big AIs contribution to climate change likely has a much more tangible route to killing millions of people and destroying society and there's actual evidence and a tangible mechanism for that. But for some strange reason the business media and all the outlets owned by big AI investors aren't interested in long thin…

> Do you think we should treat them as liars or threats?

I answered that with the analogy you called "spin" and "avoiding the question", and completely misunderstood because "vague insinuation of climate change denial" is almost the exact opposite of my point ("what if the oil companies were screaming from the rooftops about the problem" is as far from denial as you can get).

Threats. Like they claim to be.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#408

Post by metalcrow »

evdubs wrote: post #256
metalcrow wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only know about the stuff in https://www.anthropic.com/threat-intelligence-report-septemb... because it's not open source. I assure you the open source and Chinese models are being used in this same way.

I care about LLM service provider threat intelligence reports as much as I care about Google Search threat intelligence reports; which is to say, I don't care at all about it. Of course criminals use computers. They have been since personal computers became a thing. Of course using automation helps them amplify their criminal activities. Criminals using LLMs does not make the LLM situation bad. OpenAI and Anthropic u…

> Criminals using LLMs does not make the LLM situation bad

If you believe that bad things are not bad then there's nothing left to say. A billion people are going to die because you don't understand what is bad.

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#409

Post by metalcrow »

iamnothere wrote: post #357
metalcrow wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not in the way you seem to be thinking, no. Nuclear weapons can be banned because they are prohibitively expensive to research and build. You can't reliably hide a nuclear program. Isn't that true of AI as well? Data centers are very big and very expensive. > Bit of a tangent but we do, actually Sure but not like the movies, these don't destroy cities. But the metaphor isn't accurate anyway: nukes don't get worse.…

Nukes don’t get “worse” because of physics, not because of laws. You can’t make a pocket Tsar Bomba even if there were no rules against proliferation. Dial-a-yield nukes already provide a range of yields from tiny to massive, and this provides all the operational flexibility that is needed considering that nobody’s willing to actually launch them in anger. (And this reluctance again isn’t about laws, it’s about the m…

> Nukes don’t get “worse” because of physics, not because of laws.

Yes, that's my point, that's why the metaphor is wrong

Re: Everyone should slow down AI development except for me

#410

Post by metalcrow »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #224
metalcrow wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presumably performance on the level of the current frontier of AI would be achieved in short order and the ceiling would only continue to advance from there That's an enormous presumption! You're saying that even in the theoretical case that frontier research is halted but efficiency isn't, we could do better then the frontier and reach world-changing AI in 30b parameters at home-scale labs?! If that's true then we…

> frontier research is halted but efficiency isn't Why are you treating those as if they're separate things? > Advancing the frontier seems to take a massive amount of compute, data, and parameters: miniaturization only happens afterwards. This is just completely wrong. Don't mistake the path by which something happened (or appeared to an outsider to have happened) for a fundamental truth. The frontier labs build mas…

> Why are you treating those as if they're separate things?

Because they are? You haven't explained at all your belief that they are the same.

> This is just completely wrong. Don't mistake the path by which something happened (or appeared to an outsider to have happened) for a fundamental truth.

So it's completely wrong but it's only what has happened so far? You're repeating yourself but you're not listening to my responding to your exact points. I literally responded to your claim that "would you have us destroy all chip fabs and ban all biomedical research?" In the last post.

Post reply on HN