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

The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#141

Post by protocolture »

emseetech wrote: post #69
protocolture wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that governments are trying to remove gas stoves from peoples homes for safety reasons yes, you would probably have a hard time introducing them from scratch today.

I've only heard suggestions (but nothing concrete) of regulating new stoves, don't believe anyone's proposed removing existing stoves. Where are you hearing this?

I could have been more precise. Grandfathering is the term, at least until the process gets up to speed.

https://truthinscience.org/australia-is-banning-gas-stoves-b...

>Victoria’s gas stove ban was not the first, and it won’t be the last. Governments across Australia are considering similar policies, with a gas stove ban already in effect on new builds in ACT, and a ban passed in Sydney last August.

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#142

Post by balanced2 »

beloch wrote: post #96
cypherpunks01 wrote: post #46

AI-directed bombings of persons are already known to have occurred on a large scale, in Gaza. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target…

This is a rare combination of awful factors, but most of them are all too human. Humans can sift through sigint (Cell phone calls, text messages, network access, etc.) to identify and locate targets. This is labour intensive and prone to error, but it can be done. In the past, such efforts were reserved only for high ranking members of Hamas and, if civilians were killed in the process, the IDF accepted that because…

The article is quite confusing for starting with examples of travel accidents which will have a strong human cause but tries to make a case for a AI-only disaster. There is still a strong human factor in every AI tool, for example the best answers come when the model can search for human content. Perhaps humans searching for an AI-only disaster is just a means to shed responsibility from the humans? That seems far more dangerous than anything AI can do.

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#143

Post by sitkack »

originalvichy wrote: post #121
ethbr1 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IDF is using AI to whitewash ethics in the same way genai is using it to whitewash copyright. Historically, things have gone badly for society when ills were mostly constrained by potential culpability and prosecution of humans... and then that restriction was suddenly removed by technological advancement. And the cybersecurity industry / CISOs (aka fall people, giving someone responsibility without authority) ar…

This is the chilling part. When Mossad hunted down Eichmann, some of his defense could be summarized as the cliche of ”I was just following orders”. Now with this tooling, they are learning from the past, and centralizing the ”orders” into a non-human machine, which means only a few people (if ever) would stand trial if they were accused of crimes against humanity: minister of defense, some procurement guy, some tech…

We were able to largely ban chemical weapons and so far have prevented the use of nuclear weapons a second time. Maybe we can do this with AI?

Someday there will be a large shrine in Gaza to all the lives that made AI in war a morally reprehensible thing.

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#144

Post by sitkack »

therealpygon wrote: post #139
beloch wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a rare combination of awful factors, but most of them are all too human. Humans can sift through sigint (Cell phone calls, text messages, network access, etc.) to identify and locate targets. This is labour intensive and prone to error, but it can be done. In the past, such efforts were reserved only for high ranking members of Hamas and, if civilians were killed in the process, the IDF accepted that because…

[flagged]

stop

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#146

Post by ethbr1 »

sitkack wrote: post #143
originalvichy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the chilling part. When Mossad hunted down Eichmann, some of his defense could be summarized as the cliche of ”I was just following orders”. Now with this tooling, they are learning from the past, and centralizing the ”orders” into a non-human machine, which means only a few people (if ever) would stand trial if they were accused of crimes against humanity: minister of defense, some procurement guy, some tech…

We were able to largely ban chemical weapons and so far have prevented the use of nuclear weapons a second time. Maybe we can do this with AI? Someday there will be a large shrine in Gaza to all the lives that made AI in war a morally reprehensible thing.

The reason we were able to ban chemical weapons and nuclear weapons, to the extent we did, is that it was in everyone's self-interest.

In contrast, there's a reason major militaries haven't ratified the land mine treaty: they work.

Unfortunately, AI driven weapons are going to effective in terms of decreased response time and increased automomy.

Ergo, the best we can aim for should be enforced guidelines around its use. Especially with regards to human authority/responsibility.

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#147

Post by LPisGood »

jongjong wrote: post #32
LPisGood wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think AI is meaningfully taking any jobs. Just like return to office mandates, it is just more cover to do layoffs in less than prosperous economic conditions.

Yep I agree. It does make senior developers more efficient at building new features but it's maybe like 20% more efficient in the grand scheme of things... But this efficiency saving is a joke considering that companies spend most of their development money creating and maintaining unnecessary complexity. People will just produce unnecessary code at a faster rate. I think the net benefit for a typical corporation wil…

> Existing devs will destroy the new dev with complicated-but-deeply-flawed arguments which management will not fully comprehend. At the end of the day, management will do

I sympathize with this position, but I think it’s worth admitting that it’s also often the case that the complexity increases all made sense at the time of implementation, and the big rewrite in the sky is often more expensive, more risky, and likely to still end up with new complexity than is anticipated at the beginning.

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#149

Post by thfuran »

tonymet wrote: post #134
thfuran wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis do you make that conclusion?

flimsy definition of “covid death”. Questionable & in-flux PCR testing, Shoddy antibody tests (calibrated against PCR), Dubious definition of “covid disease”, e.g. “you can have covid and be asymptomatic”. 7 digits of precision. How many digits died with the actual disease, from the actual disease, or coincidentally with an antibody test? A few million elderly die each year regardless. Re-classifying a large share as…

The rest of the spitballing aside, your last point didn't hold up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, organizations like the CDC spend a lot of effort trying to get good estimates of mortality of various causes and have thought about this sort of thing before: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Re: The first big AI disaster is yet to happen

#150

Post by tonymet »

thfuran wrote: post #149
tonymet wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flimsy definition of “covid death”. Questionable & in-flux PCR testing, Shoddy antibody tests (calibrated against PCR), Dubious definition of “covid disease”, e.g. “you can have covid and be asymptomatic”. 7 digits of precision. How many digits died with the actual disease, from the actual disease, or coincidentally with an antibody test? A few million elderly die each year regardless. Re-classifying a large share as…

The rest of the spitballing aside, your last point didn't hold up. Perhaps unsurprisingly, organizations like the CDC spend a lot of effort trying to get good estimates of mortality of various causes and have thought about this sort of thing before: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

on a typical year there are 300,000 deaths due to medical error. If you tell 30% of the population to go to the hospital unnecessarily you can hit 1M excess deaths very easily.

The definition of the disease and disease mortality were nebulous. If someone goes to the hospital in panic because of a cough, they are ventilated and die -- was that from covid?

Post reply on HN