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

Among the A.I. doomsayers

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 374 posts

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#361

Post by majormajor »

ycombobreaker wrote: post #67
majormajor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really believe AI is going to be significantly more intelligent than humans, then things like "it'll just threaten to kill you if you don't maintain it's infrastructure" sound wildly off base. That's how similarly-intelligent creatures interact with each other. If it's truly a "we couldn't possibly outsmart the AI" scenario why would it be likely to end up like that instead of something more like how humans ge…

> ... something more like how humans get along with dogs, cats, cattle, insects, or microbes? There's some MASSIVE selection bias here. Note that we're significantly more capable than anything you listed. Where are the Neanderthals? They're all long dead, because they were credible competition but we were just better. In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capabili…

> In a hypothetical scenario of superintelligent or supercapable AI imbued with some physical capability of force, we'd be the marginally weaker species before we hit the threshold of "pet".

I think it's much more likely to be a step function than a gradual difference.

In the world where AI gradually gets competitive with, and then more intelligent than, humans than you have an entrenched power able to recognize this and pull the plug. This is where I see the selection bias - everyone assuming that things like "AI safety protocols for a superintelligence" are something we could rationally even hope to plan. Pre-being-able-to-directly-manipulate-the-physical-world, what keeps a step-change superintelligence from making a joke of your protocols by manipulating its way around it thanks to the squishy humans being dumb and irrational in comparison?

Isn't the doomsday scenario precisely NOT that? Where it gets wildly imablanced humans can even notice? Not "Hitler, but a bit above human intelligence." More like god, who doesn't even NEED humans to maintain its datacenters because it already solved things in robotics and machine->world interaction that humans haven't been able to because it's massively superintelligent?

And like I said, that may not mean "pet" - that's the best case, right? The worst case is ground under their feet like an ant or smaller creature.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#362

Post by bamboozled »

cyrialize wrote: post #263
antod wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me wonders if these people are intentionally framing the debate around ethics and potential risks as longer term extinction level problems to distract from the nearer term damage caused by them accelerating the economic inequality of the AI have-nots while they make themselves even richer.

I believe you may be alluding to longtermism[0]. At it's face value, longtermism seems like a good thing, but I've heard many criticisms against it - mainly levied against the billionaire class. And the criticisms mostly center on what you're saying here - how many billionaires are focusing on fixing problems that are very far off in the future, while ignoring how their actions affect those of the very near future. T…

If we get to another habitable planet we’ll plunder that too.

Turn it into graphics cards for “inference”.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#363

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #102

Always all-or-nothing thinking from these folks. Like what they are working on can never be just another boring thing that nerds find entertaining. No, it has to be "world-changing". Gonna "change the world" (for the better or the worse?) while sitting behind a keyboard. Except they do not know how to write. Overlook the important details and exaggerate, communicating in hyperbolic, know-it-all nerd gibberish. (Grant…

HN commenters frequently resort to describing the choices of software available to internet users in terms of "winning" or "won". This is more "all-or-nothing" thinking. People sometimes write software for the enjoyment of it, or to satisfy personal needs. That is, for non-commercial purposes. Sometimes this software becomes popular, sometimes it does not. In either case, the software persists; it remains available. It does not have to "change the world" in order to be useful. If it is non-commercial, it does not "win" or "lose", except in the minds of HN commenters who can only think in all-or-nothing terms. In truth, it simply exists as an option for all internet users.

It is possible that "AI" might not be as world-changing as its proponents are claiming. However, if it is free and open-source, and non-commercial, it may still persist and remain useful, regardless of whether it becomes popular or not.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#364

Post by ninetyninenine »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #309
ninetyninenine wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the losers fallacy. Seems like entrepreneurship is a good example of the losers fallacy. The path to winning is through losing a lot first. So most people never persist long enough to succeed. I would say for AI deniers it's the losers fallacy. You guys haven't taken the time to thoroughly examine chatGPT4. You just stop at the first hallucination. It's a paradigm shifting AI. Detractors like you just rely on comm…

>I asked chatGPT to program me a complex GUI in Python about selecting multiple time segments out of an overall interval using sliders. It gave me working python code. Sounds like your problems are rather short-term and low-stakes, I've presented it several questions that it cannot answer and tells me so.

What do we expect ai to be some kind of god level intelligence. The fact that it even understood the request is a paradigm shifting event.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#365

Post by HKH2 »

kouru225 wrote: post #359
HKH2 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we can assume that AI can even iterate on and develop on its own understanding of these complex calculations much faster than a human can, making it significantly better at navigating moral issues. Yeah, like judging human history and deciding murderous humans need to be removed from the earth or enslaved for their own benefit. (Some people already argue that the world would be better off without humans.) Also,…

>Yeah, like judging human history and deciding murderous humans need to be removed from the earth or enslaved for their own benefit. (Some people already argue that the world would be better off without humans.) >Also, we know torture is wrong because we have a sense of pain, but an AI would just have to take our word for it. That doesn't seem too balanced to me. Again, you have this innate belief that immorality is…

I have the belief that humans are innately selfish and shortsighted. Obviously corruption is not viable long-term. Laws should make corruption not strategically beneficial, but if you can find loopholes or people to bribe, they are more or less irrelevant. What would make an AGI not try to game the system?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#366

Post by bamboozled »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #190
bamboozled wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, maybe what happens is, intelligence + self-awareness gives rise to compassion in even digital beings. Understanding might be the basis for compassion.

Yes, maybe what happens is exactly that. We can put on a blindfold, hit the gas pedal, and trust in the benevolence of nature that things will go our way. But AI doomsayers aren't saying that there's no possible good outcomes , they're saying that the good outcomes are a narrow target surrounded by a vast ocean of bad outcomes, and it will take more than luck to hit them. It will take careful, detailed analysis, and…

Have the doomsayers prevent anything significant from going forwards ?

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#367

Post by living_room_pc »

arisAlexis wrote: post #228
living_room_pc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the AI hype train. There is so much money flowing around this topic right now, everyone wants their share of the pie. I would guess that anyone writing articles on the topic has some stake in AI as well either as an investor or a employee. What I find is interesting, is that the negative news regarding AI safety is adding to the hype as well since it seems to capture a lot of attention.

If you are calling it a hype I'm sure you are not using the models everyday in your work or otherwise. Then you would understand

You don't know me. How can you assume anything. Arrogant much?

I do use GTP* regularly for language learning, or making python templates to extend off of. Is it useful, kinda, not essential imo, but it is not worth as much as it is hyped.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#368

Post by ehnto »

kouru225 wrote: post #360
ehnto wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your perspective, what does AGI do to solve our current set of predicaments?

It solves our labor issue by upending millennia of forced labor practices. It solves our issue with knowledge and data by allowing us to automatically find patterns within massive amounts of complicated datasets. These are honestly the underlying causes of so much evil. Moreover, it provides a new consensus mechanism. Using the machine as a method of consensus allows humans to have a third party mediate disagreements…

I see your point, but perhaps I just don't see the path our society takes to make it a positive thing.

Your last point is the one I worry about most, since it is very likely these technologies will be controlled by large entities with their own interests and biases. There is also not a "correct" answer to many questions, and differences of perspective mean some parties can simply never agree. We already have truth at our fingertips yet it does not help.

To your earlier points, I think unwinding labour from our society will be an incredibly difficult thing to do, though I agree is the root of much evil and would love to see a society that does not rely on labour participation to survive.

Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers

#370

Post by kouru225 »

ehnto wrote: post #368
kouru225 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It solves our labor issue by upending millennia of forced labor practices. It solves our issue with knowledge and data by allowing us to automatically find patterns within massive amounts of complicated datasets. These are honestly the underlying causes of so much evil. Moreover, it provides a new consensus mechanism. Using the machine as a method of consensus allows humans to have a third party mediate disagreements…

I see your point, but perhaps I just don't see the path our society takes to make it a positive thing. Your last point is the one I worry about most, since it is very likely these technologies will be controlled by large entities with their own interests and biases. There is also not a "correct" answer to many questions, and differences of perspective mean some parties can simply never agree. We already have truth at…

Boss, you’re too worried about the short term and not worried enough about the long term. Our whole conception of reality will change in response to AI. Some people may be able to “control” AI and force them to make decisions that benefit their own companies, but that won’t last very long at all. Already, the AI companies are struggling to keep the AI from “hallucinating” and coming up with answers that don’t conform to their own biases.

What’s most dangerous for our society right now isn’t change its stagnation.

Post reply on HN