Thread

1. wewewedxfgdf · 1789939581 · focus · HN ↗

   I find it very hard to understand the things these AI CEO's say.

   He will probably get up there and say his companies products will destroy every citizen of their countries.

   1. howunfortunate · 1789941851 · focus · HN ↗

      People will say it's marketing but I find Occam's Razor highly favors the theory "they are true believers in AGI/ASI"

      This seems especially true for Anthropic employees.

      1. moshun · 1789942631 · focus · HN ↗

         Wouldn’t Occam’s razor say that the people speaking are highly motivated to continue being paid? Relying on their fear of future outcomes seems to be misplaced to judge the honesty of their statements.

         1. howunfortunate · 1789943070 · focus · HN ↗

            > continue being paid

            What I mean by Occam's Razor:

            There are many assumptions that need to be true to link "they say they're terrified of AI" to "they get paid more / longer", in both their own minds and everyone else's. It's a bit of 4D chess that could go their way, but also could go 100 different ways.

            In contrast, linking "they say it" to "they believe it" is simple.

            1. layer8 · 1789943710 · focus · HN ↗

               Justifying “they believe it” isn’t so simple, however.
            2. bheadmaster · 1789978520 · focus · HN ↗

               Occam's razor is about minimizing the number of assumptions needed for a conclusion. In this case, "they believe it" is the same number of assumptions as "they get paid" - just one.

               1. howunfortunate · 1789998515 · focus · HN ↗

                  Saying "I'm terrified of my job" does not normally lead fo getting paid more. Those links are the extra assumptions.

                  1. bheadmaster · 1790001101 · focus · HN ↗

                     An assumption is something that we can't know, yet assume is true for the sake of coming up with a theory. What we're assuming here is their intention.

                     The implication (or as you said, "the links"), that talking about how dangerous their product is leads to more money, is true regardless of their intention. They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation.

                     The question is only if their intention was to make money, or are they speaking from the heart. That's the assumption we choose.

                     1. howunfortunate · 1790004628 · focus · HN ↗

                        > They create hype, they get money, that's not an assumption, that's an observation.

                        Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption.

                        Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious

                        1. [deleted] · 1790017839 · focus · HN ↗

                           [deleted]

                        2. bheadmaster · 1790018374 · focus · HN ↗

                           > Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption.

                           If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world", your own reasoning falls apart. Why would you assume people mean what they say?

                           > Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious

                           You're assuming CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies are honest. I find that dubious.

                           1. howunfortunate · 1790028985 · focus · HN ↗

                              > If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world"

                              I don't.

                              There are a lot of counterfactuals we can observe empirically.

                              I'm just saying there is no empirical evidence to support the marketing strategy of "tell people our product is going to kill their families". I believe this is the first time it's been tried out.

                              1. bheadmaster · 1790060664 · focus · HN ↗

                                 No, this is not the first time. Scaremongering by frontier AI CEOs has been going on since ChatGPT came out, every time with a massive investment following.

                                 OpenAI got $10 billion from Microsoft after Sam Altman claimed AI could lead to extinction of humanity.

                                 Anthropic got similar multi-billion dollar funding from Amazon and Google after warning AI could develop biological weapons.

                                 xAI got similarly massive funding after Elon Musk predicted a terminator-style future.

                                 If you don't accept this as "empirical evidence", then there's nothing to discuss.

         2. talon8635 · 1789945582 · focus · HN ↗

            Occam’s razor doesn’t often explain not taking people for their worst and assuming a conspiracy theory
         3. ares623 · 1789952052 · focus · HN ↗

            I think it goes beyond money now. A future where AI does not destroy the world means a world where the people who work at these companies are just like everyone else.
      2. chrisXOXO · 1789943408 · focus · HN ↗

         Genuinely, what makes people not believe in coming AGI? I read quite a lot on hackernews but never encounter a strong post/comment against it, apart from the „what is marketing“ discussion. Maybe people don’t bother because everyone is in their trenches, tough I don’t understand how people do not see the AGI coming. What kind of doom, if any, will befall is something different of course. I don’t want to believe there will be AGI in the next 5 years, but it sure is hard not to!

         1. jltsiren · 1789944674 · focus · HN ↗

            I think it's because people have different ideas of AGI. Some only expect general intelligence, while others also require weird speculative ideas, such as rapid self-improvement.

            Right now, what seems to be missing from general intelligence is mostly the ability to learn from experience and continue operating in a useful way well beyond context window size. That might already be technically feasible, but probably not in a cost-effective way.

         2. Yossarrian22 · 1789944804 · focus · HN ↗

            What does AGI mean is probably the sticking point for most. I'm inclined to call it AGI if they can create something currently matching SOTA where there is no difference between training and inference time, i.e. it can continuously learn. Without the model collapsing.
         3. afavour · 1789945083 · focus · HN ↗

            I don’t believe AI progress is a linear line that ends in “AGI”. I think the current way we create LLMs will be improved, and improved, and improved. But an LLM at its core is a predictive chain, not general intelligence.

            1. talon8635 · 1789945510 · focus · HN ↗

               Well, we can’t even clearly define consciousness, so who’s to say complex large-input statistical computation isn’t it?

               I have no idea. Anyone claiming to is hubristic.

               1. afavour · 1789947194 · focus · HN ↗

                  “We can’t clearly define it so we should accept just about any definition of it” is certainly a position to take.

                  The burden of proof exists, it’s not hubristic to require it.

                  1. talon8635 · 1790006924 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yeah, on both parties. No one can prove that it is or is not large-input statistical analysis. Maybe you are suggesting that the burden is more on proving it IS. Even if that’s your case, and even if you’re right, that does not mean we can safely conclude it is not. It means we don’t know, and maybe one side of the argument is more likely… maybe.

                     Again, hubris to have an unshakeable firm belief one way or the other. None of us are omnipotent.

         4. cindyllm · 1789947943 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.