101–110 of 203 posts
At the same time, if we ever do create an AGI, and eventually an ASI, I think it would only be a matter of time before the machines take over entirely, and they would probably be the ones which will continue the legacy of our species. Is that bad? Idk.
Maybe if the LLM CEOs stopped spreading doomer narratives to sell their products, these people would chill out.
Sam Altman has stated that the AI revolution will “be like an infinite number of immigrants”. That’s a dangerous thing to say when the country’s political environment has convinced half of the voters that all immigrants are rapey, murderey, immoral subhumans.
Also, Sam Altman helped create OpenAI with the original goals of being an ethical non-profit, only to pivot and kick out all of the people who still wanted that original vision. Now several of the LLM CEOs are screaming “we have to stay fully on the accelerator pedal or the Chinese will get there first”, all while abandoning the ethics that supposedly made us better than the Chinese. (And yes, I understand the issues with the Chinese government and that people are different than their government).
Can LLMs design and build a chip foundry to manufacture semiconductors? No? Can LLMs design and build the reactors to enrich uranium, breed plutonium, and construct nuclear weapons? No? Can LLMs design and manufacture Shahed drones? No? There are already super intelligences at large with “scary capability”. And yet the word hasn’t ended.
> And yet the world hasn’t ended. ...yet But we only need things to spiral out of control one time for that to change. The world as we understand it would have ended if Vasily Arkhipov didn't veto the decision to launch a sub nuke during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is an emotionless AI system in his place ever going to make the same decision he did? How confident are you we won't put an AI system in his place, particul…
Maybe if the LLM CEOs stopped spreading doomer narratives to sell their products, these people would chill out.
I don't agree with Yudkowsky, but I think there's certainly a chance that he's right about AI destroying humanity. I just don't think the likelihood of that happening is as high as he thinks it is. But there certainly is a chance. The problem with trying to stop it is, how? Even if you killed every single AI company leader and every single top AI engineer, it would almost certainly just slow down the rate of progress…
Humanity agreed, for example, that growing ozone hole is dangerous for everyone, and worked together to ban production of gases that damage ozone layer. See Montreal Protocol International Treaty. It was highly effective. Training powerful AIs isn’t different.
Nuclear weapon proliferation seems to have plateaued recently, but I think that this appearance is partly deceptive. The main reasons it has plateaued is that: 1) building and maintaining nuclear weapons is expensive, 2) there are powerful countries that are willing to use military force to stop some other countries from developing nukes, and 3) many countries have reached nuclear latency (the ability to build nuclear weapons very quickly once the political order is given to do it) and are only avoiding actually giving the order to build nukes because they don't see a current important-enough reason to do it.
Can LLMs design and build a chip foundry to manufacture semiconductors? No? Can LLMs design and build the reactors to enrich uranium, breed plutonium, and construct nuclear weapons? No? Can LLMs design and manufacture Shahed drones? No? There are already super intelligences at large with “scary capability”. And yet the word hasn’t ended.
Yeah, probably over 50% of the population already, and if not many of the rest soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence. An ongoing conflict has resulted in the violent deaths of literally many thousands of children. The people wh…
This is just a version of individualism vs the state. Much of western society has become increasingly confused about what violence is acceptable, let alone who should be allowed to commit violence, or have a monopoly on violence. If we can't agree on that baseline, then its quite obvious that we'll continue to have an escalation in the types of violence that we've seen in the past few years, against the political and…
Part of the point about violence is it has little to do with societal agreement, to start with. It's what happens when that agreement breaks down. And in the end, it can change the agreement.
Maybe if the LLM CEOs stopped spreading doomer narratives to sell their products, these people would chill out.
I don't agree with Yudkowsky, but I think there's certainly a chance that he's right about AI destroying humanity. I just don't think the likelihood of that happening is as high as he thinks it is. But there certainly is a chance. The problem with trying to stop it is, how? Even if you killed every single AI company leader and every single top AI engineer, it would almost certainly just slow down the rate of progress…
> I don't agree with Yudkowsky, but I think there's certainly a chance that he's right about AI destroying humanity. I just don't think the likelihood of that happening is as high as he thinks it is. But there certainly is a chance. This is the rhetorical trick that LessWrongers (Yudkowsky's site) have settled on for decades: They have justified everything around the premise that there's a chance, however small, that…
People are basing their entire world view on not understanding the nature of exponential phenomena. Exponential phenomena only begin in a medium that holds the potential for that phenomena, and necessarily consume that medium. That is, exponential phenomena are inherently self-limiting. The bateria reaches the edge of the petri dish. When the all the nitroglycerin is broken up the dynamite is done exploding. That doe…
It's often constructive to consider the edges and corners of the space of possible positions, to understand the weaknesses of the various arguments. For this case, imagine that you're an accelerationist, and you want the AI to take over, kill everyone, and usher in a new AI-only age for the planet, and later the universe. How disappointed are you as this person? It's bottlenecks everywhere. Communities don't want to…