111–120 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What specifically is unsafe in this article?
It's not that the article is inherently unsafe, it's that the UK law imposes a liability the author is unwilling to shoulder.
There really are only 3 options that don't involve human destruction: 1. AI becomes a highly protected technology, a totalitarian world government retains a monopoly on its powers and enforces use, and offers it to those with preexisting connections: permanent underclass outcome 2. Somehow the world agrees to stop building AI and keep tech in many fields at a permanent pre-2026 level: soft butlerian jihad 3. Futurama…
This makes the assumption that AI will lead to the apocalypse. That's unfalsifiable, predicted about plenty of things in the past, and frankly annoying to keep seeing pop up. Its like listening to Christians talking about the rapture.
Frontier AI models get smarter every year, humans but humans don't get any smarter year over year. If you don't believe that somehow AI will just suddenly stop getting better (which is as much a faith-based gamble as assuming some rapturous outcome for AI by default), then you'd have to assume that at some point AI will surpass human intelligence in all fields, and the keep going. In that case human minds and overall will will be onconsequential compared to that of AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural just by looking at the effort that corporations and governments make to undermine it. Alignment between people is perhaps not a state of nature , but it really is a pretty normal consequence of a fairly small amount of education and of middle-class existence that is left to itself (i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups). If…
> broad alignment between people is natural Uh, what? People have been killing each other over values misalignments since there have been people. We invented civilization in part to protect our farms and granaries from people who disagreed with us on whose grain was in said granaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes the assumption that AI will lead to the apocalypse. That's unfalsifiable, predicted about plenty of things in the past, and frankly annoying to keep seeing pop up. Its like listening to Christians talking about the rapture.
The problem is that if someone is right about an existential disaster caused by AI, by the time they're proven right it would be too late. Frontier AI models get smarter every year, humans but humans don't get any smarter year over year. If you don't believe that somehow AI will just suddenly stop getting better (which is as much a faith-based gamble as assuming some rapturous outcome for AI by default), then you'd h…
In short, the ML industry is creating the conditions under which anyone with sufficient funds can train an unaligned model. Rather than raise the bar against malicious AI, ML companies have lowered it. This is true, and I believe that the "sufficient funds" threshold will keep dropping too. It's a relief more than a concern, because I don't trust that big models from American or Chinese labs will always be aligned wi…
No matter what, common people are quickly losing agency in that discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We know how the internet turned out despite pessimists flagging potential problems with it. A sludge of spyware and addiction machines which employ negative emotion and outrage to drive shareholder value? "The internet" is a pretty big tent. Everything from text messages to streaming video to online gaming to social media to encyclopedias. I think 15 years ago you could make a strong case that the internet was most…
No internet is not a net negative now. I can't believe I have to say this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural just by looking at the effort that corporations and governments make to undermine it. Alignment between people is perhaps not a state of nature , but it really is a pretty normal consequence of a fairly small amount of education and of middle-class existence that is left to itself (i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups). If…
> broad alignment between people is natural Uh, what? People have been killing each other over values misalignments since there have been people. We invented civilization in part to protect our farms and granaries from people who disagreed with us on whose grain was in said granaries.
> i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural just by looking at the effort that corporations and governments make to undermine it. Alignment between people is perhaps not a state of nature , but it really is a pretty normal consequence of a fairly small amount of education and of middle-class existence that is left to itself (i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups). If…
> broad alignment between people is natural Uh, what? People have been killing each other over values misalignments since there have been people. We invented civilization in part to protect our farms and granaries from people who disagreed with us on whose grain was in said granaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human cooperation is the norm not the exception.
The norm is competition and cooperation is the tool we invented to compete more effectively. Cooperation is only competition’s favorite strategy.
Competition is only cooperation's favorite strategy.
(By choosing from competing groups we select more favorable cooperation partners, because there are too many to choose from.)
Both of our statements are true. darned doublethink.