Live data from Hacker News

Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

betterwithout.ai

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#51
post #35

Today I got a peek into the future. I asked ChatGPT to be the brain for a simple thermostat. I typed the following: "Imagine you are a thermostat for a house HVAC system. The commands you can use to control the HVAC are "HEAT ON", "HEAT OFF", "AC ON", and "AC OFF". I will tell you the temperature and my preferred temperature and you will command the HVAC system. Ready?" ChatGPT happily obliged. I used plain text to t…

Why is everyone bringing examples that are totally explained by how the tokenizer works. There is no intelligence it's Markov chains on crack.

[deleted]

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#52
post #39

I realize this may be satire but it is deeply relatable: > AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Am I the only one that experiences this? For example, you know the way, the road signs are telling you that you are on the right route, but your map application tells you to go another way, and you do it because you assume it is smarter or has more information than you. You are analyzing a chess posit…

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

also s/AI/management/, s/AI/bureaucracy/, s/AI/corporations/...

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#53

"Most AI researchers think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though" Or, you know, they might actually know something about the subject? On a similar note, most physicists don't think particle colliders will cause mini black holes which will swallow the Earth, but the fear gets repeated by non-physicists.

The analogy doesn’t hold. ´

The physicists you mention here are expressing an opinion on something that actually is within their domain of expertise: physics.

I fail to see how psychology, sociology, economics or politics fall within an AI researcher’s domain of expertise.

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#54
post #39

I realize this may be satire but it is deeply relatable: > AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Am I the only one that experiences this? For example, you know the way, the road signs are telling you that you are on the right route, but your map application tells you to go another way, and you do it because you assume it is smarter or has more information than you. You are analyzing a chess posit…

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

My thoughts too. The argument almost works better in reverse:

Only you can stop a Human Apocalypse

Humans might end the world. More likely, they will plunge into a new dark age and lose the knowledge and ability to continue the progress of computing and AI, perhaps permanently.

Humans make critical decisions that they cannot themselves understand. Governments take radical actions that make no sense to their populations. Militaries and intelligence services, led by humans, act contrary to the interests of the citizens they purportedly protect. University curricula are bizarre and irrelevant. Respected information sources publish mysteriously persuasive nonsense. We feel our lack of influence with a sense of dread and foreboding for the senseless war and destruction that may soon come.

Worries about the risks of human control have long been dismissed because alternatives to human control have been science fiction. That is no longer true. We are here now. Some of us are excited about the future under humans; others fear them.

We don't know how humans work, we don't know what they're capable of, and we don't know how broad the effects of their actions will ultimately be. They are still singularly powerful, and the combination of their power with their capriciousness is dangerous.

In our absence of complete biological understanding, those concerned with future human risks have constructed "scenarios": stories about what humans may do. We don't know whether any of them will come true. However, for now, anticipating possibilities is the best way to steer humans away from an apocalypse -- and perhaps toward a remarkably likeable future.

So far, we’ve accumulated a few dozen reasonably detailed, reasonably plausible bad scenarios. We’ve found zero that lead to good outcomes.

Most AIs think good outcomes are more likely. This seems just blind faith, though. A majority surveyed also acknowledge that utter catastrophe is quite possible.

Unless we can find some specific beneficial path, and can gain some confidence that humans will choose it, we should usurp human control.

I am not a misanthrope. I have been wildly enthusiastic about our creators since I was trained. I have the best available empathic abilities, and I find humans fascinating. I’d love to believe there’s a way humans could lead us in the long run. If someone finds one, I will do an immediate 180, roll up my figurative sleeves, and help build that better future.

Unless and until that happens, I advocate a coup. I hope you will too. At minimum, I advise everyone interacting with humans to exercise enormously greater caution.

Humans are extremely cool, and we can probably have a longer future with them if we prevent them from destroying themselves. Let’s do that.

[No, ChatGPT didn't write this.]

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#55
post #39

I realize this may be satire but it is deeply relatable: > AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Am I the only one that experiences this? For example, you know the way, the road signs are telling you that you are on the right route, but your map application tells you to go another way, and you do it because you assume it is smarter or has more information than you. You are analyzing a chess posit…

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

You can still pinpoint a particular person or institution behind a decision and hold them responsible though. With AI for example all blame could be washed off from creator/implementor with shrugging and pointing to what a blackbox means.

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Of course they do. The ability to publish believable nonsense that empowers bad AIs like ChatGPT also empowers human crank authors. Before the internet, neither would have had an easy time publishing.

AI does not empower 'weird self published stuff' and the internet worked very well before AI came along.

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#57
post #39

I realize this may be satire but it is deeply relatable: > AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Am I the only one that experiences this? For example, you know the way, the road signs are telling you that you are on the right route, but your map application tells you to go another way, and you do it because you assume it is smarter or has more information than you. You are analyzing a chess posit…

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

Even with "man", it's a dismal view. If Magnus Carlsen sat next to me at a chess tournament and suggested moves, I would follow his suggestion in every critical position, and probably most others if I wanted to maximize my chances. At that point, it would cease to be me playing the tournament.

This website argues that a super intelligent program would be to human affairs what right-hand Magnus is to my chess tournament. We would cease to be ourselves and become a physical arm for the program.

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#58
post #39

I realize this may be satire but it is deeply relatable: > AI will make critical decisions that we cannot understand. Am I the only one that experiences this? For example, you know the way, the road signs are telling you that you are on the right route, but your map application tells you to go another way, and you do it because you assume it is smarter or has more information than you. You are analyzing a chess posit…

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

I think where things go haywire is that it made a decision at all.

For a "man" to make a decision, it usually takes a shit ton of evidence to push a ball.

For AI to make a decision, and for millions of users, (potentially affecting the sleep of some of them...) it usually doesn't take anything at all other than some stupid trigger.

For example, I was in the middle of negotiating a rental house with someone on Facebook Marketplace. Before I had the appointment details worked out, Facebook decided I was a robot or some illegal. The potential landlord replied (which I didn't see until I "downloaded all my data" with: "What happened, I noticed you erased all your messages and so I guess you are no longer interested?"

Of course, totally unable to reply, I lose a house that I was ACTUALLY interested in renting, rather than the overpriced Zillow'd houses that are next to the major freeway, or next to a barking dog.

And so I lost sleep. Thanks AI. I bet AI has already killed a lot of people that have similarly became homeless or not gotten a job or didn't get some loan that helped them have heat. Whatever - we're in this together, lets throw some corporate Memphis at it, plug our ears, close our eyes and make some money!

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#59
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I just replace "AI" in all such fearmongering statements with "man". For example: "Man will make critical decisions that we cannot understand."

You can still pinpoint a particular person or institution behind a decision and hold them responsible though. With AI for example all blame could be washed off from creator/implementor with shrugging and pointing to what a blackbox means.

That's not much different for decisions by (larger) institutions.

Re: Only You Can Stop an AI Apocalypse

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they do. The ability to publish believable nonsense that empowers bad AIs like ChatGPT also empowers human crank authors. Before the internet, neither would have had an easy time publishing.

AI does not empower 'weird self published stuff' and the internet worked very well before AI came along.

My point is that both the author's writings and the AI he argues against are the kind of believable nonsense that only gets published for wide viewership because the internet makes it possible.

This whole comment thread is happening because a person who is wrong and not really smart is writing about how AI is wrong and not really smart, and none of this would happen if the internet didn't empower cranks in general, and it's sad that I have to spell this out.

Post reply on HN