51–60 of 166 posts
It seems that the signatory form collection is not keeping up - I signed this 24 hours ago and my name still isn't listed. I suspect once they add the names that are coming in through the form that this will be a much longer list.
They're curating it. Look at the list - its almost entirely people who represent well known institutions. I don't agree and wouldn't sign anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons or deciding to burn all the fossil fuels -- on an individual competitive level, it makes sense to do this more and more to remain competitive. On a systems-whole level it leads to catastrophe. The whole tragedy of the commons thing, or, more recently described, the Moloch problem. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditation... Yann LeC…
It is not at all true that "AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons". The project manager for the Nuclear Information Project said ( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/7/3/23779794/artific... ) : """ But what we are seeing too often is a calorie-free media panic where prominent individuals — including scientists and experts we deeply admire — keep showing up in our push alerts because they vaguely…
Might be just me, but I'm getting transient page load failures for the page, might be getting a "hug of death". https://web.archive.org/web/20231102190919/https://open.mozi...
There has to be way to rescind my contributions, whether they're voluntary or not (I still think these companies are dancing with copyright violations), as well as ALL DERIVATIVES of the contributions being removed that have been created via the processing of the creations in question, regardless of form or generation (derivatives of derivatives, etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons or deciding to burn all the fossil fuels -- on an individual competitive level, it makes sense to do this more and more to remain competitive. On a systems-whole level it leads to catastrophe. The whole tragedy of the commons thing, or, more recently described, the Moloch problem. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditation... Yann LeC…
It is not at all true that "AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons". The project manager for the Nuclear Information Project said ( https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/7/3/23779794/artific... ) : """ But what we are seeing too often is a calorie-free media panic where prominent individuals — including scientists and experts we deeply admire — keep showing up in our push alerts because they vaguely…
I think the true fear is that in an AI age, humans are not "useful" and the market and economy will look very different. With AI growing our food, clothing us, building us houses, and entertaining us, humans don't really have anything to do all day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, this is existing players (OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, FB, etc) protecting their moat. AI can't be "paused". Sometimes I see the question "should we put a pause on AI development?" It doesn't mean anything. Some countries like China may say they're on board with pausing it but would they actually do so? Or just sign on and allow their companies to get an edge by not enforcing a pause. Same thing with the existin…
Yes and no. AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons or deciding to burn all the fossil fuels -- on an individual competitive level, it makes sense to do this more and more to remain competitive. On a systems-whole level it leads to catastrophe. The whole tragedy of the commons thing, or, more recently described, the Moloch problem. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditation... Yann LeC…
If anything, restrictions on any scale only allow for compeitition to catch up to an surpass it on that scale. Restrict an AI to be polite and its comeptitor has a chance to surpass it in the sphere of rudeness. This principle can be applied to any application of AI.
Leaving AI to a handful of companies is in my opinion the fastest route for inequality and power concentration/centralisation, and this is in a way an AI disaster we should be worrisome. Power corrupts, great power greatly corrupts, this is not entirely new. From where I stand, it looks like the pandora box has already been opened anyway. The era of hugginface and/or Llama2 models is only going to grow from there.
It's a homesteading land grab, plain, simple and pure.
There is a competitive landscape, first-mover advantages, incumbent effects, et al that are being anchored in e.g. Sam Altman's interests and desires at this very moment. If you want a vision of the future of garage AI, imagine a boot stomping on Preston Tucker's face over and over. The current AI industry's goal is to preserve an image of openness and benefit while getting ready to pull the ladder up when the time is right.
I still don't get what the plan is to stop bad actors from developing bad AI. A bunch of good actors agreeing not to do bad things won't help it.
Right, this is existing players (OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, FB, etc) protecting their moat. AI can't be "paused". Sometimes I see the question "should we put a pause on AI development?" It doesn't mean anything. Some countries like China may say they're on board with pausing it but would they actually do so? Or just sign on and allow their companies to get an edge by not enforcing a pause. Same thing with the existin…
this is what I believe. The only moat they have is their lobbying power and bank account. The want it tightly controlled, you can do it in your own way just as long as it's done just how I say.
The whole regulating AI thing is a farce, only the good guys follow the law and regulations. Do you think the bad guys are just going to throw up their hands and say "oh well, an agreement was made i guess we'll just go home"? The only thing blocking the way is hardware performance and data. Hardware is always getting faster and there's tons of new data created every minute, the genie is out of the bottle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
All of these can be done without AI.
Your statement reads exactly the same as "people can be killed without firearms". It's true, but firearms obviously help and cause measurable harm compared to alternatives because it makes killing (whether homicide or suicide) much easier.