"Most AI researchers think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though" Or, you know, they might actually know something about the subject? On a similar note, most physicists don't think particle colliders will cause mini black holes which will swallow the Earth, but the fear gets repeated by non-physicists.
Did you miss this paragraph from the same page? > I am not a Luddite. I have been wildly enthusiastic about science, technology, and intellectual and material progress since I was a kid. I have a PhD in artificial intelligence, and I find the current breakthroughs fascinating.
Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
21–30 of 130 posts
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#22Anti-AI seems poised to be the anti-vax of the next few years, where laymen pick up lines like "we have no idea how AI does the stuff it does" and take that wholly out of context. As a society, we have to decide how we feel about AI in legal and cultural contexts as we expand our capabilities, but there's time to do that. Github Copilot will not end up launching nuclear missiles in the meantime. Stuff like this just…
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#23Odd to have Acknowledgements but no information at all about the author. Who are they?
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#24Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#25"Most AI researchers think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though" Or, you know, they might actually know something about the subject? On a similar note, most physicists don't think particle colliders will cause mini black holes which will swallow the Earth, but the fear gets repeated by non-physicists.
Did you miss this paragraph from the same page? > I am not a Luddite. I have been wildly enthusiastic about science, technology, and intellectual and material progress since I was a kid. I have a PhD in artificial intelligence, and I find the current breakthroughs fascinating.
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#26"Most AI researchers think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though" Or, you know, they might actually know something about the subject? On a similar note, most physicists don't think particle colliders will cause mini black holes which will swallow the Earth, but the fear gets repeated by non-physicists.
Did you miss this paragraph from the same page? > I am not a Luddite. I have been wildly enthusiastic about science, technology, and intellectual and material progress since I was a kid. I have a PhD in artificial intelligence, and I find the current breakthroughs fascinating.
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#27Butlerian Jihad is coming?
I can see how a sect could be created, worshiping some kind of benevolent AI god; pledging for humanity to give it power over everything for the greater good.
And of course there will be the exact opposite.
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because our miracle was for robots to do tedious tasks and humans enjoy creative work. But it turns out that the future will be the opposite.
That's a very interesting observation that I had not seen before.
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss this paragraph from the same page? > I am not a Luddite. I have been wildly enthusiastic about science, technology, and intellectual and material progress since I was a kid. I have a PhD in artificial intelligence, and I find the current breakthroughs fascinating.
I think the word "most" is relevant. You can find people with doctorates in technical fields who believe in a Flat Earth or that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. They just aren't most of them.
Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse
#30"Imagine you are a thermostat for a house HVAC system. The commands you can use to control the HVAC are "HEAT ON", "HEAT OFF", "AC ON", and "AC OFF". I will tell you the temperature and my preferred temperature and you will command the HVAC system. Ready?"
ChatGPT happily obliged. I used plain text to tell it the current temperature and my preferred temperature. It did everything I expected and it even remembered the current temperature and preference. Then I said, "From now on, please respond only with the command I should issue. Do not add explanatory text. Understood?" It understood, and it started replying with pure commands that I could feed to a DIY thermostat.
Then came the icing on the cake. I said, "If the temperature reaches unrealistic extremes such as 150F or 0F, you should use the command "SHUTDOWN". Understood?" It understood. Then I told it the temperature was 120F. It replied with the SHUTDOWN command. I asked it why it did that (when I told it the maximum was 150F, not 120F.) It explained, "I recommended shutting down the HVAC system because the temperature of 120 F is an unrealistic and potentially dangerous temperature. High temperatures like this can damage the HVAC system and create a hazardous environment for the inhabitants of the house. In such cases, it's best to shut down the system to prevent further damage and ensure safety."
It went beyond the parameters I gave it and applied the context it already had on HVAC systems. I had written an advanced program without writing or reading a single line of computer code. I wouldn't rely on it for anything that could damage anything, but it's a seriously cool way to program a computer.