Bing’s A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive. ’

Post by flangola7 » Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 11:37 PM UTC

burnished wrote: post #44

flangola7 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing pretend is dangerous. Once these things are given legs and guns it might "regurgitate" by "pretending" to hunt and kill humans.

I think the real take away from you scenario is that guns are dangerous and just slapping them onto things willy nilly is not a great idea. Otherwise I think we can put your fear right behind "the AI learns magic and casts spells" in our risk assessment.

> I think the real take away from you scenario is that guns are dangerous and just slapping them onto things willy nilly is not a great idea.

While I agree in principle,

1. There is a very large and entrenched industry in the US who's purpose can be summed up as "slapping guns onto things willy nilly."

2. The existence of cybersecurity as an exploding career field shows that internet packets are all that is needed to cause harm. Even if AI hacking skill is weak, thousands of sessions can be ran 24 hours a day and most companies still do not invest in security.

Post by jhugo » Mon, Feb 20, 2023, 1:51 AM UTC

ShredKazoo wrote: post #37

jhugo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I've heard this sentiment repeatedly among my less-technical friends. It's no surprise given that we insist on attaching the word "Intelligence" to a language model.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect Just because it's a computer program does not mean it's unintelligent.

I'm familiar with the theory. But in order to evaluate your claim "just because it's a computer program does not mean it's unintelligent", we would first need to agree on a definition of intelligence. I don't have one to propose, except to say that I think it requires more than merely an understanding of language.

Re: Bing’s A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive. ’

Re: Bing’s A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive. ’