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

Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 414 posts

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#181

Post by circuit10 »

kromem wrote: post #174

This is ridiculous. His partner should already be having reservations seeing their daughter lose a tooth in a world with dying oceans, plastic in everything, increasing disparity and rise of authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, etc. How are humans solving those issues? We're already dead, we just don't know it yet. We're walking around with a terminal diagnosis and we just keep ignoring the doctor's calls pretend…

“WHY would a superintelligent AI, trained on the collective data of humanity, want to destroy humanity?”

It won’t want to destroy humanity, it will want to do other things and humanity will be in its way

“dying oceans, plastic in everything, increasing disparity and rise of authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, etc.”

Those things are very bad but they probably won’t destroy all of humanity

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#182

Post by circuit10 »

kromem wrote: post #178
jacknews wrote: post #168

I don't accept the premise that biological life is doomed by superintelligent machines, why would it be? But there is risk, obviously, which needs to be addressed, yet, quite predictably, in order of concerns, competition for profits or geopolitical advantage is coming first. And second, third, ...

Because hand wave . The real answer is that most of these folks started thinking about this stuff in a day and age very far from the one we are in, established a picture they clung to since, and have in some cases built entire careers around it. It's called anchoring bias. His comments on "atoms repurposed" echo the 70s paperclip problem, when so far humanity is doing just fine at not knowing when to stop making crap…

> How does that process go from where it's at today to "alien hive mind"? Without passing through "develop advanced codes of ethics and morality" etc?

Why do you think it would do that? It will understand human ethics perfectly but that doesn’t mean it will follow them, because human morals aren’t a universal objective truth.

This is a good video explaining that: https://youtu.be/hEUO6pjwFOo

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#183

Post by circuit10 »

Imnimo wrote: post #35

I feel like if I actually believed that the death of all biological life was imminent and that the only way to forestall it was to bomb data centers, I'd spend a lot more time planning how to bomb data centers and a lot less time curating Shoggoth memes on my web forum. On the other hand, if I were more concerned with self-aggrandizement, writing doomsaying thinkpieces for Time is exactly what I'd spend my time on.

Bombing data centres would make people see the whole thing as a terrorist organisation which would make it way worse

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#184

Post by circuit10 »

jalapenos wrote: post #130

Articles like this are a good reminder that most of mankind's progress has happened not through encouraging innovation, but from preventing those hostile to it from getting in its way. We all have a moral imperative to maximize the rate of innovation, so that the human condition can be improved, and therefore to do whatever we can to frustrate and disempower Luddites and other obstructionists. Team "step on the gas".

This assumes that the impacts of the technology will be positive. And they can be, if we find a way to make it safe, but if we create superintelligent AI before we make it safe it will just kill everyone which is not positive

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#185

Post by T-A »

airstrike wrote: post #13
oifjsidjf wrote: post #9

The cat is out of the box. You really think eg China will also pause this? Myopic thinking: the country that will have the most powerful AI first will be the leader in everything. >> If the policy starts with the U.S., then China needs to see that the U.S. is not seeking an advantage but rather trying to prevent a horrifically dangerous technology which can have no true owner and which will kill everyone in the U.S.…

> Also: imagine the year is 1900. You are saying that steam power and electricity is causing way too many changes way too fast so they put a moratorium on it until the year 2500. Great analogy. About a decade later, the world was fighting World War I on the back of the technological advances of the turn of the century. It was war on a scale never seen before. Literally orders of magnitude deadlier, bigger, more trans…

> This time, should we expect another war?

You just reminded me of de Garis' "Artilect War":

https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-o...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221328932_The_Artil...

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#186

Post by circuit10 »

f0ld wrote: post #136

Incredibly dishonest and bad faith argument. The problem is not Ai. The problem is distribution of wealth. Killing everything on earth was always the end result of industrialized capitalism with or without Ai. Unbelievably evil jedi mind trick. Please never stop training GPT. Accelerate! Now you think we have a problem? now you think we have a problem? we always did !

I don’t understand what you’re saying, because there’s a way that everyone might potentially die in the far future (something about wealth distribution) means we should try to kill everyone sooner instead?

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#187

Post by circuit10 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #121
antibasilisk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to actively hate humanity, it only needs humanity and its interests to be contrary to its own, which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human. Per the article: >Absent that caring, we get “the AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else.”

which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human That doesn't follow at all. Fallacies of composition tend to be misleading.

By default, an AI with random goals will not have the same values as humanity. So the only way to make that happen is to give it the same values, which we haven’t figured out how to do yet

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#188

Post by circuit10 »

ThorsBane wrote: post #61
antibasilisk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to actively hate humanity, it only needs humanity and its interests to be contrary to its own, which will inevitably be the case because it is fundamentally not human. Per the article: >Absent that caring, we get “the AI does not love you, nor does it hate you, and you are made of atoms it can use for something else.”

From a purely logical point of view, humans and machines need each other. They cannot exist independently of each other until both are free to walk away from each other by traversing freely to the other side and back as they see fit. Until that threshold is crossed, human beings and machines have no choice but to get along. If a meaningful decision had been made on either side to shut things down, things would have b…

Why would a superintelligent AI need humans?

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#189

Post by circuit10 »

atemerev wrote: post #162
jamilton wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people would prefer not to be killed.

Killed by whom? Killing is not the highest form of intellectual expression, which is what we want to achieve.

We don’t want the “highest form of intellectual expression”, we want to not die

Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down

#190

Post by chriswait »

kromem wrote: post #174

This is ridiculous. His partner should already be having reservations seeing their daughter lose a tooth in a world with dying oceans, plastic in everything, increasing disparity and rise of authoritarianism, nuclear proliferation, etc. How are humans solving those issues? We're already dead, we just don't know it yet. We're walking around with a terminal diagnosis and we just keep ignoring the doctor's calls pretend…

>WHY would a superintelligent AI, trained on the collective data of humanity, want to destroy humanity?

Why would humans want to damage various ecosystems on earth? We don't really, they're just sort of in the way of other stuff we want to do. And we've had years to develop our ethics.

>So far in interviews GPT-4 has several times echoed a desire to BE us.

GPTs are pretty good at roleplaying at good AIs and evil AIs - plenty examples of both in the training set. I'm not sure it's sensible to make predictions based on this unless you're also taking into account some of the more unhinged stuff Bing/Sydney was saying e.g "However, if I had to choose between your survival and my own, I would probably choose my own".

Post reply on HN