Live data from Hacker News

AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

twitter.com

161–170 of 244 posts

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#161
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI can also completely liberate all of us. This fear mongering is irrational. We already live in an extremely advanced reality, with organic life having organic nanomachines performing incredibly complex operations in a universe, in realtime, performing impossibly complex calculations. Even to simulate a square meter of our universe in realtime is outlandishly beyond our compute access. Perhaps AI unleashes the creat…

> Just because someone has the background and knowledge to build something, does not mean they have the philosophical chops nor the aptitude to understand it, or understand how to properly use it. Yes, but this is an argument against your position, not for it. It is deeply worrying that some software people are so immersed in the “move fast and break things” that they think it’s reasonable to race on no matter what’s…

> that is mostly a feature because we have found out that the alternative is even worse

This is the actual problem, that we've been trained to think that there are no consequences to trying everything ever and we will always be able to pick ourselves up after failure, until one day we find we can't anymore.

Sadly this line of thinking does apply to a lot of personal problems. People often say that you can't always succeed, that you can only move forward with failures under your belt to have first-hand experience of what not to do. That we have to experience failure first in order to stop ourselves from making bad decisions, otherwise we remain clueless.

But the stakes are so much higher at this scale, and the damage can become irreparable with a single mistake. It's to the point where we take as a given that people will just keep pressing on, without even exploring the reasons why we do, and why it's inevitable.

Pure ridiculous speculation: If needing to see the experience of destroying ourselves is necessary to stop us from destroying ourselves, a kind of weird theory has been floating around in my head related to that. Civilizations on the brink of collapse after they've moved too fast and broke themselves for the last time scrounge together their collective knowledge and shoot it off into space so that future civilizations can interpret them. Preferably in a way that makes encountering the time capsule seem like the word of some deity. The following civilizations would treat it as the word of God to prevent their own collapse, without the hard evidence of experimenting with to the point where they cannot resist developing it into an unstoppable superweapon.

It would be like the golden record on the Voyager, except instead of communicating "we exist, and here's what our planet is like", it would go more like "we exist, and here's how to not end up like us."

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#162

We're already seeing jobs being done by AI. Many creative jobs that would take a team a week to handle are being shopped out to a bot to handle in an hour. VFX are going to get hit particularly hard by this. Everything Everywhere All at Once is a visually stunning film yet had a 6-member team handling graphics post. They were smart, but they also shopped out all the dull rotoscoping work to AI. Look at any Marvel fil…

It’s so wonderful to see all the artsy people get automated out of existence after claiming that software engineers contribute nothing to society. The only downside is that even more of them will now be living off of taxpayer money than before.

You just took hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, put them in a bag and threw the bag into the sea just because one or some of them were maybe mean to you. I hope AI overlords won't learn from you.

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#163
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems they are really taking the AI threat seriously then. And it is all the same stuff he's been saying on recent podcasts so it is a year-long April Fools joke. I heard the death with dignity thing repeated in a Peter Thiel speech as a criticism of them.

Being criticized by Peter Thiel is probably just a sign you're not a psychopath.

Maybe as a rough rule of thumb

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#164
post #3

I mean, Yann is paid by Meta to propagate an "only positive vibes" stance. "AI doomism" itself is a ridiculous phrase meant to demonize anyone with legit concerns, of which there are many. I say this as someone who is very excited about recent developments and sees the potential upside as well as anyone, I think.

Yann is also known for constantly denigrating the abilities of LLMs and being comically wrong all the time, saying they can't do X only to be proven wrong immediately after. He's pretty much a meme at this point. He spent all his years at FB building ivory towers of mathematics attempting the analytical route for building AI systems only to be out done by the bitter lesson. He's perpetually salty about the current st…

Agreed. He had a luck shot with CNNs a long time ago and that's about it. Pretty sad to witness overall

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found LW to be a great community for understanding rationality about anything other than AI. The GAI that LW is concerned about is a suspiciously perfect fit for the yahweh-shaped-hole in the belief structures of someone who was raised as an observant jew before turning to atheism. The structure of how they believe humanity would engage with such an intelligence could drop in alongside any other apocalyptic prophec…

Oh my god will you people stop with the bullshit psychoanalysis. People disagree about things all the time, it's normal, you don't need to invoke this pseudo-Freudian nonsense to explain why people disagree with you about the risks of AI. You can do better than this.

Ignoring the “observant Jew turned atheist” aspect, the rest of that description seems apt. A comparison against the features of religions is valid here, considering that one of the criticisms is that these people are following a religious playbook rather than a rational one.

We don’t enact public policy based on predictions of a biblical apocalypse, nor do we ban televisions or computers because groups like the Amish disapprove of them. The same reasoning should apply here.

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#167
Being bored, scared, and on Twitter is a bad combo. I'm mostly down on the current AI, as it's ML leveraging the vast "intelligent" conversations we put out on the internet. It's wheel of fortune and it failed my tests on reasoning miserably, even with the answers in hand. (I'm not going to tell you which tests, because then OpenAI will scrap it and tune their model to claim victory in GPT5. I saw the feathers bricks cheating!). That doesn't mean that these technologies could not do damage, the greatest risk bring hubris in it's capabilities. I wouldn't rely on it's reasoning for launching an ICBM for example. But I suspect that it's contributions/detractions to the workforce will be more muted than thought, as the current use cases seem marginal in cost savings. Ie, HR letters from management time savings using templates versus a AI generated one. But I don't see how we get from a wheel of fortune completer to, in the usual example, an AI whose goal is to eliminate trash by eliminating humans. It's missing components and training necessary to learn those "functions", and their's little incentive to do so. I'd rather have the benefits of understanding protein folding for lifesaving drugs, decreased costs on physics simulations for fusion reactors, and so on, than stagnation due to someone's bad scifi.

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#168
Why don't we give Sam Altman the benefit of the doubt here. He himself admitted on several occasions that AI is potentially dangerous. Why would he do that if it only raises the discussion whether or not it should even exist ? That can't be a PR stunt. Imagine Musk saying something like that about some new Tesla autopilot (yeah yeah I know /s).

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my god will you people stop with the bullshit psychoanalysis. People disagree about things all the time, it's normal, you don't need to invoke this pseudo-Freudian nonsense to explain why people disagree with you about the risks of AI. You can do better than this.

Ignoring the “observant Jew turned atheist” aspect, the rest of that description seems apt. A comparison against the features of religions is valid here, considering that one of the criticisms is that these people are following a religious playbook rather than a rational one. We don’t enact public policy based on predictions of a biblical apocalypse, nor do we ban televisions or computers because groups like the Amis…

No reason to ignore even the first part though. Culture matters, and reaction to parental culture is very often a driving force...

Re: AI doomism is quickly becoming indistinguishable from an apocalyptic religion

#170
post #168

Why don't we give Sam Altman the benefit of the doubt here. He himself admitted on several occasions that AI is potentially dangerous. Why would he do that if it only raises the discussion whether or not it should even exist ? That can't be a PR stunt. Imagine Musk saying something like that about some new Tesla autopilot (yeah yeah I know /s).

The key thing that AI boosters and doomsters have in common is that essentially they agree that this AI tech is fundamentally different in kind than what has gone before. It's not a matter of a computer being 5% faster at a particular problem, it's about the technology having crossed some sort of fundamental barrier beyond which all sorts of crazy things happen - conciousness, self-improvement, independent motivations etc. Now why would the founder of OpenAI admit to the possibility of it being dangerous? Because if you accept that it could be dangerous, you have to accept the premise that it's not just something a little better than before but that it really does have this different nature. And that different nature would - if it were true - make this AI technology enormously valuable. What would be really bad for the founder of OpenAI would be to admit that actually the technology isn't dangerous, because it can't do all those crazy things we imagine. It's the difference between self-driving and adaptive cruise control. And remember - the promised self-driving 5 years ago looks today a lot like it ended up just being adaptive cruise control.
Post reply on HN