Live data from Hacker News

White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

whitehouse.gov

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

#101
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert Miles is a much more effective communicator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMLKbhY0ji0

Thanks, I'm a half hour in and will keep listening; he's more soft spoken and relatable sure but he still strikes me as a vague doomer who's not trying to explain why he's confident humans will lose, just that he's confident. @30:24, on what solutions might be realistic to help, if not a 6 month sanction, Miles says: "Maybe what we should be asking for is just an enormous amount of money to do alignment research with…

Ah yes all that research money will be used to buy mansions and ferarris. Do you have a clue how this stuff works in real life?

Also note that until maybe the last year not only was there not a great financial incentive to be a "doomer" but it would actively hurt your career if you were. Most of the main people in the scene have been sounding this alarm for years sometimes decades. It's also difficult to explain people like Geoff Hinton or Yoshua Bengio joining and leaving behind high profile and highly lucrative positions. Yann LeCun, a staunch anti-doomer is perhaps the perfect example who has actually DOES have enormous financial incentive to play down AI dangers.

Re: White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

#102
post #63
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is really bad at plugging itself in after it is unplugged.

Do you think this is an unsolvable problem for AI? In a world where humans are already being tricked by AI-generated deepfakes and robots can play ping pong and soccer, just to gesture at a couple of possible approaches it might take?

Link to ai playing ping pong ?

Edit: found one. https://youtu.be/u3L8vGMDYD8

I don’t think ping pong bots that can beat humans are here yet.

Re: White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern planes are purely computer controlled. I imagine the same is true of Teslas. And nuclear power plants and missile systems etc.

Huh? if this were true, the plane would never have been safely landed in the Hudson by a human pilot. yes, the majority of flights are flown by the computer autopilot because of the fuel efficiency, but the pilot can take control at any point.

The Hudson was a bird in an engine. The computer was working fine. Now imagine if you tell the computer to do X and it just ignores you. You have no actual control over the engines, flaps, etc. The computer does. And it ignores you...

Re: White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

#104
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you also need to draw a line between different types of danger: An actual AGI, that can think and has it's own motives and initiative is an entirely different danger to GPT-4, -5 etc which cannot. Those might post a danger in terms of fake news, or worker displacement, but they're just social issues. No rate improvement in chat GPT will make it "decide to kill all the humans" etc.

Every time I hear how artificial intelligence with its "own motives" etc. are dangerous, I wonder how it's different from just dealing with people and animals. Or to put it another way, I can't see how artificial intelligence could be any more dangerous than intelligence as we already know and have them.

[dead]

Re: White House Secures Commitments from Leading AI Companies to Manage AI Risks

#105
post #87
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe it's worth updating your assessment Nope. Because I think the White House's press release is expressing the White House's view of what's important. That the White House didn't get distracted by the chaff says nothing about the chaff or those firing it off.

There's nothing in this release that companies didn't agree to as well. Which doesn't prove that they're fundamentally motivated by what's best for humanity but does maybe indicate that it wouldn't be hard for them to just stick to PR about shorter term safety concerns if no one working there (or externally) was genuinely concerned about longer term "x-risk" etc.

I see no reason to think this isn't them sticking to short-term PR concerns. For a while, the tech playbook with regulators is to say vague, positive things, grudgingly agree to some bare minimum, and then mostly ignore or sandbag on their commitments while lobbying aggressively behind the scenes.
Post reply on HN