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

Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#91

Post by ACCount37 »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #89
ACCount37 wrote: post #19

It's simple. It's because AI is the scariest technology ever made. Human intelligence has proven itself capable of doing a lot of scary things. And AI research is keen on building ever more capable and more scalable intelligence. By now, the list of advantages humans still have over machines is both finite and rapidly diminishing. If that doesn't make you uneasy, you're in denial.

AI, the way you are describing it, has not been invented yet. It is a fiction. What is called "AI" today is an extremely vague marketing term being applied to various software technologies which are only dangerous because humans are dangerous. Nuclear & chemical weapons are also "very scary" but only because the humans who might decide to use them in fits of insanity are scary. I'm not in the slightest bit uneasy abo…

"It's just marketing" is just the "denial" stage wearing a flimsy disguise.

Even LLMs of today routinely do the kind of tasks that would have "required human intelligence" a few years prior. The gap between "what humans can do" and "what frontier AIs can do" is shrinking every month.

What makes you think that what remains of that gap can't be closed in a series of incremental upgrades? Just 4 years have passed since the first ChatGPT. There are a lot of incremental upgrades left in "any of our lifetimes".

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#92

Post by jaredcwhite »

ACCount37 wrote: post #91
jaredcwhite wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI, the way you are describing it, has not been invented yet. It is a fiction. What is called "AI" today is an extremely vague marketing term being applied to various software technologies which are only dangerous because humans are dangerous. Nuclear & chemical weapons are also "very scary" but only because the humans who might decide to use them in fits of insanity are scary. I'm not in the slightest bit uneasy abo…

"It's just marketing" is just the "denial" stage wearing a flimsy disguise. Even LLMs of today routinely do the kind of tasks that would have "required human intelligence" a few years prior. The gap between "what humans can do" and "what frontier AIs can do" is shrinking every month. What makes you think that what remains of that gap can't be closed in a series of incremental upgrades? Just 4 years have passed since…

You don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who have been reporting for years at this point that merely scaling LLMs and so-called "agentic systems" doesn't get us anywhere close to true AGI.

Also computers in the 1980s could perform many tasks that previously would have "required human intelligence". So? Are you saying computers in the 1980s were somehow intelligent?

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#93

Post by ACCount37 »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #92
ACCount37 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's just marketing" is just the "denial" stage wearing a flimsy disguise. Even LLMs of today routinely do the kind of tasks that would have "required human intelligence" a few years prior. The gap between "what humans can do" and "what frontier AIs can do" is shrinking every month. What makes you think that what remains of that gap can't be closed in a series of incremental upgrades? Just 4 years have passed since…

You don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who have been reporting for years at this point that merely scaling LLMs and so-called "agentic systems" doesn't get us anywhere close to true AGI. Also computers in the 1980s could perform many tasks that previously would have "required human intelligence". So? Are you saying computers in the 1980s were somehow intelligent?

And you don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who say "scaling still works, and will work for a good while longer".

If your only reference points are LeCun, or, worse, some living fossils from the "symbolic AI" era, then you'll be showered in "LLMs can't progress". Often backed by "insights" that are straight up wrong, and were proven wrong empirically some time in 2023.

If you track LLM capabilities over time, however, it's blindingly obvious that the potential of LLMs is yet to be exhausted. And whether it will be any time soon is unclear. No signs of that as of yet. If there's a wall, we are yet to hit it.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#94

Post by bauerd »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #90
bauerd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people on this planet work repetitive, uncreative jobs.

Oh? And what extensive knowledge and experience makes YOU qualified to determine what "the vast majority of people on this planet" are doing for work and if those tasks are creative or uncreative?

Not sure what you're insinuating. What do you think is the statistically average job on this planet? It's still going to be cultivating a smallholder farm in developing countries, or working in logistics, manufacturing or the broader service in developed countries.

All of these average jobs are structurally repetitive. Yes, humans do constantly inject creativity, but it's a means to an end, to getting the job done.

You apparently mistook my descriptive comment for a value judgment, but it isn't.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#95

Post by munksbeer »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #69
ACCount37 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they? Not conscious? If you list out every prominent theory of consciousness, you'd find that about a quarter rules out LLMs, a quarter tentatively rules LLMs in, and what remains is "uncertain about LLMs". And, of course, we don't know which theory of consciousness is correct - or if any of them is. So, what is it that makes you so sure, oh so very certain, that LLMs just "feel" conscious but aren't?

Because they don't _understand_ things. If I teach an LLM that 3+5 is 8, it doesn't "get" that 4+5 is 9 (leave aside the details here, as I'm explaining for effect). It needs to be taught that as well, and so on. We understand exactly everything that goes into how LLMs generate answers. The line of consciousness, as we understand it, is understanding. And as far as what actually constitutes consciousness, we're not e…

> The line of consciousness, as we understand it, is understanding.

Is it? I'm no expert, by any stretch, but where does this theory come from?

I don't think anyone knows what consciousness is, or why we appear to have it, or even if we do have it. I don't even know that you're conscious. I could be the only conscious being in the universe and the rest of you are just zombies, with all the right external outputs to fool me, but no actual consciousness.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#96

Post by mememememememo »

afavour wrote: post #7
mememememememo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are renowned voting or buying in their own worst interests. And it goes back to before Trump and in many countries.

Yes but in order to get someone to vote against their interests you need to sell them on something else that's a benefit. They don't just automatically vote against themselves. "This technology might escape our control, might devastate the economy but also serves as a serviceable chatbot for your entertainment" isn't a vote winner.

The way out of this for the seller is to lie and conflate the rich with everyone. "This technology will make your retirement account grow and other countries will be giving us money!"

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#97

Post by dsa3a »

ACCount37 wrote: post #93
jaredcwhite wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who have been reporting for years at this point that merely scaling LLMs and so-called "agentic systems" doesn't get us anywhere close to true AGI. Also computers in the 1980s could perform many tasks that previously would have "required human intelligence". So? Are you saying computers in the 1980s were somehow intelligent?

And you don't seem to be engaging seriously with respected experts in this field who say "scaling still works, and will work for a good while longer". If your only reference points are LeCun, or, worse, some living fossils from the "symbolic AI" era, then you'll be showered in "LLMs can't progress". Often backed by "insights" that are straight up wrong, and were proven wrong empirically some time in 2023. If you trac…

That aside.

Lets look at the facts.

Are LLMs displacing labour? In the aggregate - not from what one can see. The aggregate statistics tell a different story e.g. the hiring of software engineers is still growing Y-o-Y.

The limits of LLMs will be put in place through financial constraints. People like you seem to think there's an infinite stream of money to fund this stuff. Not really. Its the same reason why Anthropic and OAI are now shifting focus to generate revenues and cash flows because they will not receive external funding forever.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#98

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

everdrive wrote: post #17

One thing that strikes me that I never really see anyone discuss is that we've been afraid of conscious computers for a _long_ time. Back in the 50s and before people were quite afraid that we'd build conscious computers. This was long before there was any sense that could actually accomplish the task. I think that similarly to seeing faces in the clouds, we imagine a consciousness where none exists. (eg: a rain god…

I don't really care if the machine is conscious; all I worry about is whether it can execute a plan that ends with all of us dying.

And it's getting close to the point where I think that would be possible. If I were commenting today after 30 years of an AI plateau; if my parents had grown up with ChatGPT and Claude Code in the same state as they are today, with no progress after decades of effort, then probably I wouldn't worry. But that's not the world we live in. I have no idea what to expect from AI capabilities in the next five or ten years.

I think in the span of my infant's adulthood, we will see AI able to run and manage companies as CEO, direct investments worth tens of billions, design and plan chemical factories as chief structural engineer, and maybe even perform as an automated labor force to construct them. But even if they still rely on human hands to do the work, AI will be capable of signing the paychecks and issuing the directions. And at that point I really think AI would be capable of taking us out by surprise.

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#99

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

yanis_t wrote: post #52

I wish we didn't call this AI as the term is crazily overloaded. Those are programs. The only difference is how we write them. Not with "if"s and "for"s. We take a bunch of bits that do nothing. Then we organize them in a way so that it outputs whatever it is we want.

What kind of AI do you envision that would ever not fit that description?

Re: Why do we tell ourselves scary stories about AI?

#100

Post by latentsea »

Humans are the existence proof we seem to be chasing and the goal appears to be to hit a superset of humanities collective capabilities. I don't know if you've seen what we do to each other but... I'm afraid of a decent chunk of us too. If what we build is a superset of our capabilities then I am afraid of it, because I am already afraid of us.
Post reply on HN