111–120 of 964 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were to take a look at the list of signatories on safe.ai, that's basically everyone who is everyone that works on building AI, what could Emily B Bender a professor of computer linguistics possibly add to the conversation and how would she be able to talk more about the "real AI safety" than any of those people? Edit: Sorry if it sounds arrogant, I don't mean Emily wouldn't have anything to add, but not sure…
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pathetic. He is beclowning himself.
No, really? They guy who tried to make a world coin by stealing people’s biometrics data with a shiny metal orb?
What a joke.
Nuclear weapons are not nebulous, vague threats of diffuse nature. They literally burn the living flesh right off the face of the earth and they do it dramatically. There is very little to argue about except "how" are we going to contain it, not "why".
In this case I truly don't know "why". What fundamental risks are there? Dramatic, loud, life-ending risks? I see the social issues and how this tech makes existing problems worse, but I don't see the new existential threat.
I find the focus on involving the government in regulating "large" models offputting. I don't find it hard to imagine good quality AI is possible with tiny - to us - models. I think we're just in the first lightbulbs phase of electricity. Which to me signals they are just in it to protect their temporary moat.
Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
I mean.. I think I have some idea, but I certainly did not dig in enough to consider myself an expert in any way shape or form ( all the while, Linkedin authorities of all kinds present themselves as SMEs after building something simple using chatgpt like html website ).
And while politicians ( even the ones approaching senility ) are smarter than your average bear, they certainly know the deal. It is not like the same regulatory capture did not happen before with other promising technologies. They just might pretend they don't understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, really? They guy who tried to make a world coin by stealing people’s biometrics data with a shiny metal orb?
This doofus actually probably thinks that the poor of the world will line up to submit to his (AI’s) benevolent rule. What a joke.
There are a bunch of physicists signed up on there; (e.g. Martin Rees) - they don't seem relevant to it at all. There's been a long history of famous physicists weighing in on entirely unrelated things.
Pathetic attempt at regulatory capture. Let’s all be smart enough to not fall for this crap, eh?
While we might ( rightfully ) recognize this blitzkrieg for what it is, the general population likely does not and may even agree to keep a lid on something it does not understand. Come to think of it. Just how many people actually understand it? I mean.. I think I have some idea, but I certainly did not dig in enough to consider myself an expert in any way shape or form ( all the while, Linkedin authorities of all k…
Can anybody who really believes this apocalyptic stuff send me in the direction of a convincing _argument_ that this is actually a concern? I'm willing to listen, but I haven't read anything that tries to actually convince the reader of the worry, rather than appealing to their authority as "experts" - ie, the well funded.
Robert Miles' videos are among the best presented arguments about specific points in this list, primary on the alignment side rather than the capabilities side, that I have seen for casual introduction.
Eg. this one on instrumental convergence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZeecOKBus3Q
Eg. this introduction to the topic: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pYXy-A4siMw
He also has the community-led AI Safety FAQ, https://aisafety.info, which gives brief answers to common questions.
If you have specific questions I might be able to point to a more specific argument at a higher level of depth.