Live data from Hacker News

Statement on AI Risk

safe.ai

371–380 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#371
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.

Here's my proposal: https://gfodor.medium.com/to-de-risk-ai-the-government-must-...

tl;dr: significant near term AI risk is real and comes from the capacity for imagined ideas, good and evil, to be autonomously executed on by agentic AI, not emergent superintelligent aliens. To de-risk this, we need to align AI quickly, which requires producing new knowledge. To accelerate the production of this knowledge, the government should abandon decelerationist policies and incentivize incremental alignment R&D by AI companies. And, critically, a new public/private research institution should be formed that grants privileged, fully funded investigators multi-year funding cycles with total scientific freedom and access to all state-of-the-art artificial intelligence systems operating under US law to maximize AI as a force multiplier in their research.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#372
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…

the real immediate risk isn't either of these imo. it's agentic AI leveraging some of that to act on the wishes of bad actors.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#373

The statement should read: Mitigating the risk of extinction from climate change should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. The fantasy of extinction risk from "AI" should not be placed alongside real, "societal scale" risks as the ones above. Well. The ones above .

Why are you so confident in calling existential AI risk fantasy?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#374
post #273

I'm not sure they can keep claiming this without becoming concrete about it. Nuclear weapons are not nebulous, vague threats of diffuse nature. They literally burn the living flesh right off the face of the earth and they do it dramatically. There is very little to argue about except "how" are we going to contain it, not "why". In this case I truly don't know "why". What fundamental risks are there? Dramatic, loud, l…

Agreed that it should be spelled out, but... If a superintelligence can be set on any specific task, it could be any task. - Make covid-ebola - Cause world war 3 You may have noticed that chatgpt is sort of goal-less until a human gives it a goal. Assuming nothing other than it can become superintelligent (no one seems to be arguing against that--I argue that it already is ) which is really an upgrade of capability,…

Are you really arguing ChatGPT is already super-intelligent? What is your basis for this conclusion?

And many people argue against the idea that GPT is already super intelligent or even can become so at this stage of development and understanding. In fact as far as I can tell it is the consensus right now of experts and it's creators.

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/nt9qoqmzz

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#375
post #58
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…

> How can it not be obvious to you

It isn't obvious to me. And I've yet to read something that spills out the obvious reasoning.

I feel like everything I've read just spells out some contrived scenario, and then when folks push back explaining all the reasons that particular scenario wouldn't come to pass, the counter argument is just "but that's just one example!" without offering anything more convincing.

Do you have any better resources that you could share?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#376
post #294

But yet, it’s full steam ahead. Many if not all of the signatories are going to do their part to advance AI even as they truly believe it may destroy us. I’ve never seen such destructive curiosity. The desire to make cool new toys (and yes, money) is enough for them to risk everything. If you work on AI: maybe just … stop?

The problem is that's unilateralism.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#377

This reeks of marketing and a push for early regulatory capture. We already know how Sam Altman thinks AI risk should be mitigated - namely by giving OpenAI more market power. If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies. Instead we get some nonsense about licensing.

Agreed. If the risks were real they would just outright stop working on their AI products. This is nothing more than a PR statement

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#378

This reeks of marketing and a push for early regulatory capture. We already know how Sam Altman thinks AI risk should be mitigated - namely by giving OpenAI more market power. If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies. Instead we get some nonsense about licensing.

As others have pointed out, there are many on this list (Bruce Schneier, for example) who do not stand to benefit from AI marketing or regulatory capture.

Anyone upvoting this comment should take a long look at the names on this letter and realize that many are not conflicted.

Many signers of this letter are more politically sophisticated than the average HN commenter, also. So sure, maybe they're getting rolled by marketers. But also, maybe you're getting rolled by suspicion or bias against the claim they're making.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That moat document was published by a single software engineer, not some exec or product leader. Humans dont really grasp exponential improvements. You wont have much time to regulate something that is improving exponentially.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, it got picked up, had a good argument and affected market opinion. The execs now need to respond to it. Humans also don't grasp that things can improve exponentially until they stop improving exponentially. This belief that AGI is just over the hill is sugar-water for extracting more hours from developers. The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing…

> The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same.

It is hard for me to imagine a statement more out of touch with history than this. All geopolitical history from WWII forward is profoundly affected by the development of the bomb.

I don't even know where to begin to argue against this. Off the top of my head:

1. What would have happened between Japan and the US in WWII without Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

2. Would the USSR have fallen without the financial drain of the nuclear arms race?

3. Would Isreal still exist if it didn't have nuclear weapons?

4. If neither the US nor Russia had nuclear weapons, how many proxy wars would have been avoided in favor of direct conflict?

The whole trajectory of history would be different if we'd never split the atom.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#380
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…

You hear similar arguments from those who believe climate change is happening but disagree with current efforts to counter-act it. The logic being that right now climate change is not causing any major harm and that we can't really predict the future so there's no point in worrying about what might happen in a decade or two.

I don't think anyone is arguing that right now climate change or AI is threat to human civilisation. The point is that there are clear trends in place and that those trends are concerning.

On AI specifically, it's fairly easy to see how a slightly more advanced LLM could be a destructive force if it was given an unaligned goal by a malicious actor. For example, a slightly more advanced LLM could hack into critical infrastructure killing or injuring many thousands of people.

In the near-future AI may help us advance biotech research and it could aid in the creation of bioweapons and other destructive capabilities.

Longer-term risks (those maybe a couple of decades out) become much greater and also much harder to predict, but they're worth thinking about and planning for today. For example, what happens when humanity becomes dependant on AI for its labour, or when AI is controlling the majority of our infrastructure?

I disagree but can understand the position that AI safety isn't humanities number one risk or priority right now, however I don't understand the dismissive attitude towards what seems like a clear existential risk when you project a decade or two out.

Post reply on HN