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

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

ssi.inc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#911

Post by rvnx »

tim333 wrote: post #902
AYBABTME wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter argument is that nuclear arms brought unprecedented worldwide peace. If it's to be used as an analogy for AI, we should consider that the outcome isn't clear cut and lies in the eye of the beholder.

I'm cautiously optimistic that AI may be a peacemaker, given how woke and conciliatory the current LLMs are.

Sadly. Once students will get tested by LLMs, they will get woke questions. If they don't answer "right", they may get bad grades. So they will be forced to swallow the ideology.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#912

Post by DebtDeflation »

benreesman wrote: post #753
insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I understand the concern that a "superintelligence" will emerge that will escape its bounds and threaten humanity. That is a risk. My bigger, and more pressing worry, is that a "superintelligence" will emerge that does not escape its bounds, and the question will be which humans control it. Look no further than history to see what happens when humans acquire great power. The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brough…

It’s just clearly military R&D at this point. And it’s not even a little bit controversial that cutting edge military R&D is classified in general and to an extreme in wartime. The new thing is the lie that it’s a consumer offering. What’s new is giving the helm to shady failed social network founders with no accountability. These people aren’t retired generals with combat experience. They aren’t tenured professors a…

>owe their position in the world to pg’s partisanship 15 fucking years ago

PG?

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#913

Post by valicord »

jen729w wrote: post #580
Sharlin wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can make a safe AI today, but what happens when the next person is managing things? The point of safe superintelligence , and presumably the goal of SSI Inc., is that there won't be a next (biological) person managing things afterwards. At least none who could do anything to build a competing unsafe SAI. We're not talking about the banal definition of "safety" here. If the first superintelligence has any reason…

I wonder how many people panicking about these things have ever visited a data centre. They have big red buttons at the end of every pod. Shuts everything down. They have bigger red buttons at the end of every power unit. Shuts everything down. And down at the city, there’s a big red button at the biggest power unit. Shuts everything down. Having arms and legs is going to be a significant benefit for some time yet. I…

Where can I find the red button that shuts down all Microsoft data centers, all Amazon datacenters, all Yandex datacenters and all Baidu datacenters at the same time? Oh, there isn't one? Sorry, your superintelligence is in another castle.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#914

Post by RGamma »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #912
benreesman wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s just clearly military R&D at this point. And it’s not even a little bit controversial that cutting edge military R&D is classified in general and to an extreme in wartime. The new thing is the lie that it’s a consumer offering. What’s new is giving the helm to shady failed social network founders with no accountability. These people aren’t retired generals with combat experience. They aren’t tenured professors a…

>owe their position in the world to pg’s partisanship 15 fucking years ago PG?

Paul Graham

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#915

Post by tim333 »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #285

Ilya's issue isn't developing a Safe AI. Its developing a Safe Business. You can make a safe AI today, but what happens when the next person is managing things? Are they so kindhearted, or are they cold and calculated like the management of many harmful industries today? If you solve the issue of Safe Business and eliminate the incentive structures that lead to 'unsafe' business, you basically obviate a lot of the so…

Open source it?

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#916

Post by RGamma »

rvnx wrote: post #909
tim333 wrote: post #906

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given it will initially be controlled by humans it seems inevitable they will make both good Mahatma Gandhi like and evil take over the world versions. I hope the good wins over the malware.

As a note, you used Gandhi as a personification of "good", and one day I did the same mistake; Gandhi is actually a quite controversial person, knowing for sleeping with young women, while telling their husbands that they shouldn't be around.

Same with Buddhism being an uncompromisingly peaceful religion...

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#917

Post by CRConrad »

sneak wrote: post #842
roywiggins wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without business incentives, the military advantages of AI would inventivize governments to develop it anyway, like they did with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are inherently unsafe, there are some safeguards around them, but they are ultimately dangerous weapons.

Dangerous weapons are not inherently unsafe. Take a Glock, for example. It is a deadly weapon, designed for one thing and one thing alone. It is, however, one of the safest machines ever built.

The very existence of dangerous weapons, be they nukes or handguns (or swords or tanks), makes the world less of a safe place than if they didn't exist. Existence is pretty much the most inherent attribute anything can have, AFAICS, so yes: Dangerous weapons are inherently unsafe. (Take that Glock, for example -- that's exactly the problem, that someone can take it. Might be someone who knows how to remove the safety.)

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#918

Post by tim333 »

RGBCube wrote: post #499

The year is 2022. An OpenAI employee concered about AI safety creates his own company. The year is 2023. An OpenAI employee concered about AI safety creates his own company. The year is 2024.

Probably keeps on while super high AI company valuations continue. Why not do that if the new co is instantly valued at $1bn+?

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#919

Post by ben_w »

CRConrad wrote: post #863
sneak wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human flight, resurrection (cardiopulmonary resuscitation machines), doubling human lifespans, instantaneous long distance communication, all of these things are simply pipe dreams.

> resurrection (cardiopulmonary resuscitation machines) Get back to me when that can ressurect me after I've been dead for a week or so.

We have people walking around for weeks with no heartbeat.

They're tied to a machine, sure, but that machine itself is a miracle compared to any foundational religious textbook including those as recent as Doreen Valiente and Gerald Gardner with Wicca.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#920

Post by CRConrad »

whimsicalism wrote: post #419
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if the last 20 years is to be taken as evidence, it seems big tech is more than happy to shotgun unproven and unstudied technology straight into the brains of our most vulnerable populations and just see what the fuck happens. Results so far include a lot of benign nothing but also a whole lot of eating disorders, maxed out parents credit cards, attention issues, rampant misogyny among young boys, etc. Which,…

i am very skeptical of narratives saying that young boys or men are more misogynistic than in the past. we have a cognitive bias towards thinking the past is better than it was, but specifically on gender issues i just do not buy a regression

> i am very skeptical of narratives saying that young boys or men are more misogynistic than in the past.

They don't even have to be more misogynistic than in the past for there to be a detrimental effect. Because so many other things in society -- pre-school and school environments, upbringing by more enlightened parents than what those parents themselves had, etc etc[1] -- cooperate to make young men and boys less misogynistic than in the past... But maybe that effect would be even more pronounced without shitty influences from social media; don't you think it's possible that all the online crap inhibits the good influences, so without it the kids would be even better?

[1]: From comparing my sons' generation to what I remember of my own youth and childhood.

Post reply on HN