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

Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#101

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #26

The actual contents of this article are making reasonable arguments I largely agree with. It would be very surprising for LLM-based AI systems to act as monomanaical goal optimizers, since they're trained on human text and humans are extremely bad at goal-oriented behavior. (My goals for today include a number of work and self-maintenance tasks, and the time I'm spending here writing out a HN comment does not all hel…

I feel like if it took thirty or forty more years of research before a more advanced, more goal-oriented AI became capable of destroying humanity for paperclips, that would still be a bad outcome. The road ahead is long and we're moving too fast to only consider what's in the rear view mirror.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#102

Post by robkop »

dsa3a wrote: post #97
ACCount37 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who say "scaling still works, and will work for a good while longer". If your only reference points are LeCun, or, worse, some living fossils from the "symbolic AI" era, then you'll be showered in "LLMs can't progress". Often backed by "insights" that are straight up wrong, and were proven wrong empirically some time in 2023. If you trac…

That aside. Lets look at the facts. Are LLMs displacing labour? In the aggregate - not from what one can see. The aggregate statistics tell a different story e.g. the hiring of software engineers is still growing Y-o-Y. The limits of LLMs will be put in place through financial constraints. People like you seem to think there's an infinite stream of money to fund this stuff. Not really. Its the same reason why Anthrop…

I can’t speak for the states, but in AU I clearly see a massive displacement of undergrad and junior roles (only in AI exposed domains).

I say this as both someone who works with many execs, hearing their musings, and someone who no longer can justify hiring junior roles themselves.

Irrespective of that; if we take this strategy of only taking action once it is visible to the layman - our scope of actions available will be invariably and significantly diminished.

Even if you are not convinced it is guaranteed and do not believe what myself and others see. I would ask you is your probability of it happening now really that close to 0? If not then would it not be prudent to take the risk seriously?

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#104

Post by jurgenburgen »

robkop wrote: post #102
dsa3a wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That aside. Lets look at the facts. Are LLMs displacing labour? In the aggregate - not from what one can see. The aggregate statistics tell a different story e.g. the hiring of software engineers is still growing Y-o-Y. The limits of LLMs will be put in place through financial constraints. People like you seem to think there's an infinite stream of money to fund this stuff. Not really. Its the same reason why Anthrop…

I can’t speak for the states, but in AU I clearly see a massive displacement of undergrad and junior roles (only in AI exposed domains). I say this as both someone who works with many execs, hearing their musings, and someone who no longer can justify hiring junior roles themselves. Irrespective of that; if we take this strategy of only taking action once it is visible to the layman - our scope of actions available w…

> If not then would it not be prudent to take the risk seriously?

What does taking the risk seriously look like?

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#105

Post by nextaccountic »

ACCount37 wrote: post #72
afavour wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I think nuclear weapons are scarier. And also probably a useful parallel: they're so dangerous that we coined the term "mutually assured destruction" and everyone recognized that it was so dangerous to use them that they've only ever been used once. I see the flood of PR from AI firms as an attempt to make sure we don't build the appropriate safeguards this time around, because there's too much money to…

I remind you of why nuclear weapons exist. They exist because human minds conceived them, and human hands made them. One of the major dangers of advanced AI is being able to implement something not unlike Manhattan project with synthetic intelligence, in a single datacenter.

Yeah, the problem with AI is that they can become too good at performing general tasks, ranging from, like, designing cancer treatments, or designing bioweapons, and everything in between

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#106

Post by Xmd5a »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #89
ACCount37 wrote: post #19

It's simple. It's because AI is the scariest technology ever made. Human intelligence has proven itself capable of doing a lot of scary things. And AI research is keen on building ever more capable and more scalable intelligence. By now, the list of advantages humans still have over machines is both finite and rapidly diminishing. If that doesn't make you uneasy, you're in denial.

AI, the way you are describing it, has not been invented yet. It is a fiction. What is called "AI" today is an extremely vague marketing term being applied to various software technologies which are only dangerous because humans are dangerous. Nuclear & chemical weapons are also "very scary" but only because the humans who might decide to use them in fits of insanity are scary. I'm not in the slightest bit uneasy abo…

I'm not interested in reading the same arguments over and over angain. Ai is not scary anymore, it's fucking boring. Exits thread

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#107

Post by Hikikomori »

afavour wrote: post #80
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone recognized that it was so dangerous to use them after the first two mass casualty events. At the time and even into the 50s it was not universally obvious, and the arguments in favor of nuclear weapons use were quite similar to arguments I often see with regards to AI: bombing cities into rubble is not a new concept, traditional explosives well within the supply capacity of large militaries are capable of it…

> Everyone recognized that it was so dangerous to use them after the first two mass casualty events I really don’t think that’s true. Those who actually knew about the nuclear weapons knew very well how dangerous they were. Truman was deeply conflicted about using them.

Truman changed after learning the real civilians death numbers that they caused. The military leaders absolutely knew the impact before, and kept advocating for its in later wars.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#109

Post by ladax72707 »

> It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#110

Post by benj111 »

MyHonestOpinon wrote: post #54
everdrive wrote: post #17

One thing that strikes me that I never really see anyone discuss is that we've been afraid of conscious computers for a _long_ time. Back in the 50s and before people were quite afraid that we'd build conscious computers. This was long before there was any sense that could actually accomplish the task. I think that similarly to seeing faces in the clouds, we imagine a consciousness where none exists. (eg: a rain god…

It is so interesting how in the 50s we "felt" that AI was possible even if we didn't even have the slightest idea on how that would work. Later on, when we started to understand computers it looked like a very remote possibility in the far future, something our great grand kids may need to worry about. And suddenly it is here and the dangers seem a lot more real.

Is it though? I can't help feeling we are just seeing what we want to see. Is this not just an improved Eliza?
Post reply on HN