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

Playing in the Creek

hgreer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 122 posts

Re: Playing in the Creek

#41

Post by bombcar »

noduerme wrote: post #39
BrenBarn wrote: post #28

It's a nice article. In a way though it kind of bypasses what I see as the main takeaways. It's not about AI development, it's about something mentioned earlier in the article: "make as much money as I can". The problems that we see with AI have little to do with AI "development", they have to do with AI marketing and promulgation. If the author had gone ahead and dammed the creek with a shovel, or blown off his hand…

This is such a well-written response. There's something intentionally soothing about this post that slowly turns into a jarring form of self-congratulation as it goes along. Congratulations for knowing there's a limit to wrecking your parents' property. Congratulations for being able to appreciate the sand on the beach, in some no doubt instagrammable moment of existential simplicity. Congratulations for being so sma…

I’ve often wondered how, with billions of dollars, do you know someone actually loves you and not your money?

Complicated!

Re: Playing in the Creek

#42

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

tvc015 wrote: post #36
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #33

The author seems concerned about AI risk -- as in, "they're going to kill us all" -- and that's a common LW trope. Yet, as a regular user of SOTA AI models, it's far from clear to me that the risk exists on any foreseeable time horizon. Even today's best models are credulous and lack a certain insight and originality. As Dwarkesh once asked: > One question I had for you while we were talking about the intelligence st…

Aren’t semiautonomous drones already killing soldiers in Ukraine? Can you not imagine a future with more conflict and automated killing? Maybe that’s not seen as AI risk per se?

That's not "AI risk" because they're still tools that lack independent volition. Somebody's building them and setting them loose. They're not building themselves and setting themselves loose, and it's far from clear how to get there from here.

Dumb bombs kill people just as easily. One 80-year old nuke is, at least potentially, more effective than the entirety of the world's drones.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#43

Post by hacb »

DrSiemer wrote: post #23

So many articles and comments claim Ai will destroy critical thinking in our youths. Is there any evidence that this conviction that many people share is even remotely true? To me it just seems like the same old knee-jerk luddite response people have to any powerful new technology that challenges that status quo since the dawn of time. The calculator did not erase math wizards, the television did not replace books an…

> The calculator did not erase math wizards

The major difference is that in order to use a calculator, you need to know and understand the math you're doing. It's a tool you can work with. I always had a calculator for my math exams and I always had bad grades :)

You don't have to know how to program to ask ChatGPT to build yet another app for you. It's a substitute for your brain. My university students have good grades on their do-at-home exams, but can't spot a off-by-one error on a 3 lines Golang for loop during an in-person exam.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#44

Post by bitethecutebait »

dachris wrote: post #22
doctoboggan wrote: post #5

This is an excellent essay, and I feel similar to the author but couldn't express it as nicely. However if we are counting on AI researchers to take the advice and slow down then I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. The author indicated they stepped away from a high paying finance job for moral reasons, which is admirable. But wallstreet continues on and does not lack for people willing to play the "make as much money…

The paperclip maximizers are already here, but they are maximizing money. One recent HN comment [0] comparing corporations and institutions to AI really stuck with me - those are already superhuman intelligences. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43580681

> those are already superhuman intelligence(s)

... only because "unsafe" and "leaky" are a Ponzi's best-and-loves-to-be-roofied-and-abused friend ... you see, intelligence is only good when it doesn't irreversibly break everything to the point where most of the variety of the physical structure that evolved it and maintains it is lost.

you could argue, of course, and this is an abbreviated version, that a new physical structure then evolves a new intelligence that is adapted (emerged from and adjusts to) to the challenges of the new environment but that's not the point of already capable self-healing systems;

except if the destructive part of the superhuman intelligence is more successful with it's methods of sabotage and disruption of

(a) 'truthy' information flow and

b) individual and collective super-rational agency -- for the good of as many systems-internal entities as possible, as a precaution due to always living in uncertainty and being surrounded by an endless amount of variables currently tagged "noise"

-- than it's counterpart is in enabling and propagating a) and b) ...

in simpler words, if the red team FUBARS the blue team or vice versa, the superhuman intelligence can be assumed to have cancer or that at least some vital part of the force is corrupted otherwise.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#45

Post by FollowingTheDao »

"It was only once I got it that I realized I no longer could play the game "make as much money as I can.""

Funny, that is what my father taught me when I was 12 because we had compassion. What is it with glorifying all these logic loving Spock like people? Don't you know Captain Kirk was the real hero of Star Trek? Because he had compassion?

It is no wonder the Zizians were birthed from LW.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#47

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

BrenBarn wrote: post #28

It's a nice article. In a way though it kind of bypasses what I see as the main takeaways. It's not about AI development, it's about something mentioned earlier in the article: "make as much money as I can". The problems that we see with AI have little to do with AI "development", they have to do with AI marketing and promulgation. If the author had gone ahead and dammed the creek with a shovel, or blown off his hand…

> As soon as people start trying to use anything, AI or not, to make as much money as possible, we have a problem.

I noticed that, around the turn of the century, when "The Web" was suddenly all about the Benjamins.

It's sort of gone downhill, since.

For myself, I've retired, and putter around in my "software garden." I do make use of AI, to help me solve problems, and generate code starts, but I am into it for personal satisfaction.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#48

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

luc4sdreyer wrote: post #24
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #19

That was a well written essay with a non-sequitur AI Safety thing tacked to the end. His real world examples were concrete, and the reason to stop escalating easy to understand ("don't flood the neighbourhood by building a real dam"). The AI angle is not only even hypothetical: there is no attempt to describe or reason about a concrete "x leading to y", just "see, the same principle probably extrapolates". There is n…

> the high velocities of steam locomotives might kill you This obviously seems silly in hindsight. Warnings about radium watches or asbestos sound less silly, or even wise. But neither had any solid scientific studies showing clear hazard and risk. Just people being good Bayesian agents, trying to ride the middle of the exploration vs. exploitation curve. Maybe it makes sense to spend some percentage of AI developmen…

> Warnings about radium watches or asbestos sound less silly, or even wise. But neither had any solid scientific studies showing clear hazard and risk.

In the case of asbestos, this is incorrect. Many people knew it was deadly, but the corporations selling it hid it for decades, killing thousands of people. There are quite a few other examples besides asbestos, like leaded fuel or cigarettes.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#49

Post by noduerme »

bombcar wrote: post #41
noduerme wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a well-written response. There's something intentionally soothing about this post that slowly turns into a jarring form of self-congratulation as it goes along. Congratulations for knowing there's a limit to wrecking your parents' property. Congratulations for being able to appreciate the sand on the beach, in some no doubt instagrammable moment of existential simplicity. Congratulations for being so sma…

I’ve often wondered how, with billions of dollars, do you know someone actually loves you and not your money? Complicated!

I've got a particularly strong view on this, because I've got a brother who tried to get wildly rich in some seriously unethical ways to impress our father, and still never got a single word of praise from him. And who's miserable and unloved and been betrayed by the women he married... who married him for his money. He's so desperate for someone to come admire his cars and his TVs, to just come hang out with him. He pays for friends.

Me, I don't have billions of dollars, but I might be in the top 10% or something. And I just cringe when I see guys use their money and status or job title, or connections, or cars or shoes or... anything they have as opposed to who they are as a way to impress people. (Women, usually). I understand this is what they think they have to do. Like, I understand that's how primates function, and you're just doing what apes do, but do they seriously think they'll ever be able to trust anyone who pretends to like them after that person thinks they're rich?

Maybe I'm just lucky I got to watch it up close when I was a teenager. Lol. My brother's first wife, at his wedding, got up and gave a speech... she said, "my friends all said he was too short, but I told them he was taller when he was standing on his wallet". Some people laughed. I didn't. After fifteen years of screaming at each other and drug abuse, she committed suicide and he got with the next secretary who hated him but wanted his money. Oh well.

My answer has always been to appear to be poor as fuck until I know what drives someone. When I meet a girl, I'll open doors and always buy dinner... at a $2 taco joint. And make sure she offers to buy the next round of drinks. I'll play piano in a random bar, and make her sing along. I'll order her the cheapest beer. I'll show her a painting I made and tell her I can't make any money selling 'em, is why I'm broke. If anyone asks me what I do, I don't say SWE or CTO, I say I'm a writer or a musician between things. And I'll do this for months until I get to know a person. Yeah, it's a test. The girls I've had relationships with, the girl I'm with right now, passed it. She doesn't even want to know. She says, whatever you got, I could've been with someone richer than you but I didn't want that life, so play piano for me. I'm not saying I've got the key to happiness, or humility, and maybe I'm a total asshole too, but... at least I'm not an asshole who's so hollow they have to crow about their job or their money to find "love" from people who - let's say this - can not, and will not ever love them.

Re: Playing in the Creek

#50

Post by bombcar »

noduerme wrote: post #49
bombcar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve often wondered how, with billions of dollars, do you know someone actually loves you and not your money? Complicated!

I've got a particularly strong view on this, because I've got a brother who tried to get wildly rich in some seriously unethical ways to impress our father, and still never got a single word of praise from him. And who's miserable and unloved and been betrayed by the women he married... who married him for his money. He's so desperate for someone to come admire his cars and his TVs, to just come hang out with him. He…

One of the things I’ve heard, and found to be true, is that if you don’t love yourself it’s going to be terribly hard for others to love you
Post reply on HN