31–40 of 66 posts
The second anyone develops an AI that is more capable than humans they will use them to completely cripple opposing threat actor's attempts to develop AI. Full power grid, economic, social attacks are definitely coming, not sure how you could think otherwise.
The problem I have with intelligence is that intelligence alone doesn't win a land war in Asia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> first strike with AGI simply wins The question I come back to over and over again is: wins what?
Power aggregation. First AI will likely kill a lot of people at the behest of humans. If I were a world power with a functional AI, I would immediately launch a full scale attack on foreign governments infrastructure so they couldn't develop a competing AI.
All of this buys you a few minutes or days at most. Once Super Intelligence exists, it's game over. It will nearly instantaneously outthink you and your paltry countermeasures. You think linearly and in 3 or 4 dimensions only. By definition you can't even imagine its capabilities. Here's a bad analogy (bad because it severely understates the gap): Could a 3 year old who is not even clear on all the rules defeat Magnu…
Sure. When the board gets thrown to the floor, game is over and baby is happy. Magnus now has to clean up.
Please keep in mind that Dan Hendrycks helped write the disastrous AI quashing bill SB 1047, which Newsom vetoed last year. If these people get their way, the US has no competitive AI strategy at all. He has moved on to pretending he's not a doomer. Nothing could be further from the truth. During his time at Cal, Dan was telling people to get their hazmat suits ready for the AI apocalypse. These are deeply unserious…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power aggregation. First AI will likely kill a lot of people at the behest of humans. If I were a world power with a functional AI, I would immediately launch a full scale attack on foreign governments infrastructure so they couldn't develop a competing AI.
Why is AI better at killing humans than humans? What exactly is the threat introduced by "intelligence on silicon" rather than "intelligence on meat"? Why would an AI be better at attacking computers than humans using automated tools to do the same thing?
An intelligent machine oriented towards 24/7 cyber attack with even parity human intellect is clearly a massive threat, let alone a data center full of them.
There's no teeth in MAIM like MAD has; first strike with AGI simply wins, and so the most covert AGI program will win.
> first strike with AGI simply wins The question I come back to over and over again is: wins what?
The second anyone develops an AI that is more capable than humans they will use them to completely cripple opposing threat actor's attempts to develop AI. Full power grid, economic, social attacks are definitely coming, not sure how you could think otherwise.
Great way to get yourself nuked, no? The problem I have with intelligence is that intelligence alone doesn't win a land war in Asia.
We've had cyber hostilities with China for a long time now.
An AI could easily be used in a decapitation strike of military systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> first strike with AGI simply wins The question I come back to over and over again is: wins what?
Power aggregation. First AI will likely kill a lot of people at the behest of humans. If I were a world power with a functional AI, I would immediately launch a full scale attack on foreign governments infrastructure so they couldn't develop a competing AI.
Please keep in mind that Dan Hendrycks helped write the disastrous AI quashing bill SB 1047, which Newsom vetoed last year. If these people get their way, the US has no competitive AI strategy at all. He has moved on to pretending he's not a doomer. Nothing could be further from the truth. During his time at Cal, Dan was telling people to get their hazmat suits ready for the AI apocalypse. These are deeply unserious…