221–230 of 520 posts
When I read about the dangers of AI I'm reminded of the feeling I had after reading Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence". He talked about simulating the neocortex to do many of the things that deep learning and LLM's are doing now. His research may or may not be a dead end but his work, and this work, to me seems like we're building the neocortex layer without building the underlying "lizard brain" that higher animals' br…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But what are you supposed to do? Contradict your boss's boss's boss? Yes? Obviously?
> Yes? Obviously? I mean, I agree, obviously. My point is that most people don't. And I think for two reasons. The first and more important reason is that most people aren't involved in The Discourse and don't want to be involved in The Discourse. That's probably 99.9% of the Silent Majority -- they simply don't want to talk about anything on HN or Twitter. They view it as a waste of time or worse. and they aren't wr…
This is something weird happening around Rationalism/X-Risk/AGI prognostications. The "Great Minds And Great Leaders" types are rushing to warn about the risks, as are a large number of people who spend a lot of time philosophizing. But the actual scientists on the ground -- the PhDs and engineers I work with every day and who have been in this field, at the bench, doing to work on the latest generation of generative…
In my opinion the weirdness is that everyone is talking about how AI is so much better than humans and we're all going to get replaced. But almost nobody is talking about how tech companies will use this new technology to abdicate responsibility for the decisions they undertake. If you thought redlining was bad, you should see how mortgage companies treated people when they used an AI to accomplish the same goals. No…
The risk isn't some sort of rogue smarter than humans AI, it's humans using AI to do the same stupid evils in a deniable or even unknown way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> I repeat everyone that is loling at x-risk an idiot I mean this is the nicest possible way and hope that you consider it constructive: you're willfully misconstruing what I am saying and then calling me an idiot. This isn't a nice thing to do and shuts down the conversation. If I believed you were operating in good faith, I might take the time to explain why my practical/scientific experience makes me incredulous o…
I am most intrigued, particularly regarding Oppenheimer and Einstein.
*Bias: My own biases are based on my biological understanding of how the neurobiology works after I got my ADHD under control through nootropics.
1. Neurons are not computer electronic circuits. Note, even DH covers this in his own misgivings of how AI is viewed. 2. Our Id is not an electronic computation thing as our own brain is a biological emotional chemical wave machine of Id.
Think of this way the math of micro quantum and macro quantum is vastly different. Same for AI in that the math of micro circuits of AI will be vastly different than the macro AI circuits that will come up with any AI Id thing. We are just not there as of yet as it's like saying the software that makes the international telecom system keep up and run has it's own emergent Id....it clearly does not even though there are in fact emergent things about that system of subsystems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the survey, you'll find that many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. So, this type of response wouldn't be rational if they're thinking that things will go fine most of the time. If these researchers are thinking logically, they would also realize that this kind of reaction has little chance of success, especially if research continues in places like China. It…
> If you read the survey Not a nice way to engage in debate. I've spent more time listening to and refuting these arguments than most. Including debating Eliezer. > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%. A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it. > So, this t…
> > many concerned researchers don't believe we're at a 90% chance of doom, but e.g. 10%.
> A 10% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth would result in every country in the world diverting all of their budgets into building a means to deflect it.
Have you been observing what is happening with climate change. Chances are much worse than 10% and pretty much every country in the world is finding reasons why they should not act.
When I read about the dangers of AI I'm reminded of the feeling I had after reading Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence". He talked about simulating the neocortex to do many of the things that deep learning and LLM's are doing now. His research may or may not be a dead end but his work, and this work, to me seems like we're building the neocortex layer without building the underlying "lizard brain" that higher animals' br…
This is a great way to put it. The counter to "current generation AI is terrifying" seems to fall along the lines of it not being nearly as close to AGI as the layperson believes. But I don't think that matters. I don't believe that LLMs or image/voice/video generative models need to do much beyond what they can do today in order to wreck civilization level disaster. They don't need to become Skynet, learn to operate…
You have to have a little more faith in humanity than that...
I could be wildly wrong about this (oh hi upcoming robot overlords), but the current AI hype feels similar to something I experienced when Alexa and Google Assistant was the rage. At the time I worked for a big community site and we often had people pitching ideas for voice assistant apps. However, having actually read the documentation for these things, I knew that they were surprisingly stupid and the grand ideas p…
When we take fiction as fact we enter into the sphere of religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AR will take off like crazy when they develop lightweight, clear goggles than can display color with a range of opacities. A million jobs are begging for HUDS that guide the worker, but the current equipment isn't there yet.
> A million jobs are begging for HUDS that guide the worker [..] I have a pretty dull, comfortable desk job and lack the imagination to come up with any. Can you name some? (I've been wrong before when I was skeptical when everyone was hyped about iPad, Deep Learning, etc. so please convince me about Apple Vision, Mark's metaverse, or google's glasses and paint what might be in 5 years.)
Security guard at the mall, Power Rangers, etc...
It's the same nonspecific Change Could Be Dangerous that we've always had. It accompanies every technological and social change.