121–130 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why would people say the Model 3 would never be mass produced? Nissan had been mass producing EVs for years before Tesla did, so it was obvious that mass produced EVs were viable. (Tesla started selling EVs before Nissan did, but those were not mass produced).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not talking about a kill switch. He's saying to just pull the plug. That's the point I don't get. People forget that all these AI things are plugged into a power source or network connection that someone can just yank on and it goes down. Now one interesting proposition is when AI is controlling some large resource and pulling the plug makes AI go down which makes that resource go down but there still has to be…
Do you understand the concept of the cloud? Aka someone else’s computer? The whole point is that you don’t have a plug to pull because you don’t even know where the model is physically running, even if it’s your model. And if we’re talking about a swarm of many concurrent instances, it might not even be a single location. The entire point is that there’s no single point of failure, because availability is exactly wha…
There will always be a plug to pull. All systems run on electric and that plug can be pulled. All systems network through cables (or wifi) and those plugs can be pulled.
And nothing's going to stop you from doing so unless they build some robotic arm to block you or lock you out of the building. Even then, you can blow up the building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing present danger with future danger - in the future, AI and the supporting hardware may be ubiquitous (fat client scenario) - you can observe yourself presentation of laptops/machines with large RAM and high bandwidth. Additionally, there at different doom scenarios (thin client scenario) - it's possible that AIs centralized but sufficiently entrenched in society, can't be shut down without considerabl…
i don't think anyone knows how this will play out - everyone is just anthropomorphizing, extrapolating etc... and i think it's nonsense - not because i don't believe that is the correct thing to do but because i believe this won't stop anyone from moving forward. This is what humans do, they move forward and cause others to move forward or lose out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you understand the concept of the cloud? Aka someone else’s computer? The whole point is that you don’t have a plug to pull because you don’t even know where the model is physically running, even if it’s your model. And if we’re talking about a swarm of many concurrent instances, it might not even be a single location. The entire point is that there’s no single point of failure, because availability is exactly wha…
>>The whole point is that you don’t have a plug to pull There will always be a plug to pull. All systems run on electric and that plug can be pulled. All systems network through cables (or wifi) and those plugs can be pulled. And nothing's going to stop you from doing so unless they build some robotic arm to block you or lock you out of the building. Even then, you can blow up the building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing present danger with future danger - in the future, AI and the supporting hardware may be ubiquitous (fat client scenario) - you can observe yourself presentation of laptops/machines with large RAM and high bandwidth. Additionally, there at different doom scenarios (thin client scenario) - it's possible that AIs centralized but sufficiently entrenched in society, can't be shut down without considerabl…
If someone has a fat client powerful enough to do all that, is a kill switch going to work? If we assume there's bad actors using the tech, why wouldn't there be bad actors building it? But if we don't think about any of this, hearing an expert say "we need a kill switch" sure makes our current AI seem super powerful and exciting, doesn't it?
My comment didn't mention kill switches at all - I've presented plausible conditions for a loss of control scenario, so I'm not sure you're actually following the conversation.
Having said that, it seems that you haven't read the (definitely poor) article, either.
"Kill switch" as a design principle, that is, having protocols/implementations for emergencies, is something that companies are already implementing (at least, on paper) - on a interview I've watched for example, S.Altman talked about having them at OpenAI.
The article simply mentions that companies should be legally required to have such protocol(s). This is a good thing, as companies would have scrutiny and would (in principle) have to put serious effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone has a fat client powerful enough to do all that, is a kill switch going to work? If we assume there's bad actors using the tech, why wouldn't there be bad actors building it? But if we don't think about any of this, hearing an expert say "we need a kill switch" sure makes our current AI seem super powerful and exciting, doesn't it?
> If someone has a fat client powerful enough to do all that, is a kill switch going to work? My comment didn't mention kill switches at all - I've presented plausible conditions for a loss of control scenario, so I'm not sure you're actually following the conversation. Having said that, it seems that you haven't read the (definitely poor) article, either. "Kill switch" as a design principle, that is, having protocol…
I'm not sure you're the one following the conversation.
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the hero defeats the hostile onboard computer by entering its logic core and manually disconnecting its memory modules. That's hard to do if the AI rack is in space as SpaceX is planning to do. You can't disconnect. You can't shoot it.
You can shoot them. But also, you can just stop sending them to space. It’s not like an AI will build and control space ships to replace and maintain its network in space… It’s sort of absurd how human agency is ignored in all those sci-fi scenarios
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>reusable rockets would never work I am so fucking tired of people acting like we haven't had reusable rockets since the 1980s. Do you think I was hallucinating when my parents drove me to Florida to see Columbia ?
Experts said it wouldn't work. Then they said okay maybe it works, but the economics won't. Now they say nothing.
This feels like doom hype. These LLMs aren't Ultron, they aren't going to disseminate onto the net and hide in a smart toaster. We know where they are, in the giant facilities that draw more power than a small city and whose water consumption can be compared to golf courses, but it does make them sound all the more cool and powerful if we suggest we need a dramatic kill switch to be able to stop them in case of rampa…
No, it's a method of protecting their business interests. Can't have a clear and obvious kill switch if you don't have a centralized company responsible for providing all AI-related services.
So they goal is to hype up the dangers real or not so high that they forbid others from doing what they are doing because they are the only ones who can safely do it.