Statement on AI Risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#281

Post by pphysch » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

sebzim4500 wrote: post #92

jasonvorhe wrote: post #29

Can't take this seriously as long they still keep offering commercial AI services while improving the existing models they already have. (I'm not in favor of just stopping AI development and even if people claimed to stop, they probably wouldn't.) It's like people carrying torches warning about the risks of fire.

I agree with you that some of these people (probably Sam Altman) are likely proposing this regulation out of self interest rather than genuine concern. But I don't think the stance is necessarily hypocritical. I know nuclear engineers who advocate for better regulation on nuclear power stations, and especially for better handling of nuclear waste. You can believe that AI is a net positive but also that it needs to be…

Nuclear engineers are in the line of fire, of course they would care about safety. It's their safety more than almost anyone else.

Needless to say, this does not hold for AI researchers.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#282

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #259

olalonde wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A good person to follow on real AI safety is Emily M. Bender (professor of computer linguistics at University of Washington): https://mstdn.social/@emilymbender@dair-community.social - Pronouns - "AI bros" - "mansplaining" - "extinction from capitalism" - "white supremacy" - "one old white guy" (referring to Geoffrey Hinton) Yeah... I think I will pass.

Odd that you lump a person's choice of their own pronouns into a legitimate complaint that all she seems to have is prejudice and ad hominems.

[deleted]

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#283

Post by jvanderbot » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

duvenaud wrote: post #231

Infernal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Humans are going to be outcompeted by AI” is the concrete bit as best I can tell. Historically humans are not outcompeted by new tools, but humans using old tools are outcompeted by humans using new tools. It’s not “all humans vs the new tool”, as the tool has no agency. If you meant “humans using old tools get outcompeted by humans using AI”, then I agree but I don’t see it any differently than previous efficiency…

I see what you mean - for a while, the best chess was played by humans aided by chess engines. But that era has passed, and now having a human trying to aid the best chess engines just results in worse chess (or the same, if the human does nothing). But whether there a few humans in the loop doesn't change the likely outcomes, if their actions are constrained by competition. What abilities do humans have that AIs wil…

Well, in this case, we have the ability to invent chess (a game that will be popular for centuries), invent computers, and invent chess tournaments, and invent programs that can solve chess, and invent all the supporting agriculture, power, telco, silicon boards, etc that allow someone to run a program to beat a person at chess. Then we have bodies to accomplish everything on top of it. The "idea" isn't enough. We have to "do" it.

If you take a chess playing robot as the peak of the pyramid, there are probably millions of people and trillions of dollars toiling away to support it. Imagine all the power lines, sewage, HVAC systems, etc that humans crawl around in to keep working.

And really, are we "beaten" at chess, or are we now "unbeatable" at chess. If an alien warship came and said "we will destroy earth if you lose at chess", wouldn't we throw our algorithms at it? I say we're now unbeatable at chess.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#284

Post by holmesworcester » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

max_ wrote: post #260

tasubotadas wrote: post #236

If only we would fight for the real issues like climate change, instead of fantasies that would be great.

Things like extreme poverty already kill many people today. The risk of individuals suddenly falling into extreme poverty is a very real one. But none wants to talk about how to mitigate that problem.

Most moral and legal systems hold genocide in a special place, and this is natural, because systematically killing all members of a religious or ethnic group is more damaging than killing some members.

Eliminating a disease like smallpox is a much more significant achievement than simply mitigating it or treating it. When we really eliminate a disease it may never come back!

This list of experts is worried about us building something that will do to us what we did to smallpox. For the same reasons as above, that is more worrying than extreme poverty and the comparison you are making is a false equivalence.

Another way to look at it is, you can't fight to end poverty when you no longer exist.

We can argue about whether the risk is real, but if this set of experts thinks it is, and you disagree for some reason, I would spend some time thinking deeply about whether that reason is simply based in a failure of imagination on your part, and whether you are sure enough to bet your life and everyone else's on that reason. Everyone can think of a security system strong enough that they themselves can't imagine a way to break it. Similarly, anyone can think of a reason why superhuman AGI is impossible or why it can't really hurt us.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#285

Post by fnordpiglet » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

TL;DR “The only thing preventing human extinction is our companies. Please help us block open source and competitors to our oligarchy for the sake of the children. Please click accept for your safety.””

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#286

Post by sebzim4500 » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #205

sebzim4500 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in order to use the plural form you really need to have two examples. Sam Altman is of course the least convincing signatory (except for the random physicist who does not seem to have any connection to AI).

> I think in order to use the plural form you really need to have two examples. Perhaps, but I don't see the value proposition in relaying another. Altman was fun to point out. I see no remaining enjoyment. > Sam Altman is of course the least convincing signatory Less convincing than Grimes?

On second inspection of the list yeah there are loads of people less convincing than Sam

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#287

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

tasubotadas wrote: post #236

If only we would fight for the real issues like climate change, instead of fantasies that would be great.

It doesn't feel nice when the real issues that you care about are passively dismissed as fantasies, with no supporting argument, does it?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#288

Post by randomdata » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

oldgradstudent wrote: post #261

randomdata wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musical artist Grimes is also a signatory. It would seem the real purpose of this is to train an AI agent on appeal to authority.

> It would seem the real purpose of this is to train an AI agent on appeal to authority. I hope the real purpose is to train an AI agent to understand why appeal to authority was always cosidered to be a logical fallacy.

Considered by some to be a logical fallacy. Not considered at all by most people. Hence its effectiveness.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#289

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

shafyy wrote: post #32

The issue I take with these kind of "AI safety" organizations is that they focus on the wrong aspects of AI safety. Specifically, they run this narrative that AI will make us humans go extinct. This is not a real risk today. Real risks are more in the category of systemic racism and sexism, deep fakes, over reliance on AI etc. But of course, "AI will humans extinct" is much sexier and collects clicks. Therefore, the…

> This is not a real risk today.

Yes, clearly. But it is a risk for tomorrow. We do still care about the future, right?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#290

Post by Veen » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:20 PM UTC

patrec wrote: post #58

valine wrote: post #17

I have yet to see a solution for “AI safety” that doesn’t involve ceding control of our most powerful models to a small handful of corporations. It’s hard to take these safety concerns seriously when the organizations blowing the whistle are simultaneously positioning themselves to capture the majority of the value.

> It’s hard to take these safety concerns seriously I don't get this mindset at all. How can it not be obvious to you that AI is an uniquely powerful and thus uniquely dangerous technology? It's like saying nuclear missiles can't possibly be dangerous and nuclear arms reduction and non-proliferation treaties were a scam, because the US, China and the Soviet Union had positioned themselves to capture the majority of t…

It is possible to believe that AI poses threat, while also thinking that the AI safety organizations currently sprouting up are essentially grifts that will do absolutely nothing to combat the genuine threat. Especially when their primary goal seems to be the creation of well-funded sinecures for a group of like-minded, ideologically aligned individuals who want to limit AI control to a small group of wealthy technologists.