Thread

1. bananaflag · 1790163465 · focus · HN ↗

   > Describing them as “superintelligence” or “rogue models” ascribes agency to products rather than to the companies building them. This framing markets these companies’ products as “superhuman” and, at the same time, helps the companies evade accountability for their actions.

   If someone discovered how to summon demons to aid them in robbing banks the main issue wouldn't be "but who has the responsibility for the crime, the human or the demon", it would be "OMG DEMONS".

   Seriously, I don't get what sort of world these people are living in.

   1. brainwad · 1790164968 · focus · HN ↗

      The authors (Timnit Gebru and Emily Bender) are dyed-in-the-wool AI denialists. Famously they were the lead authors on "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots".

      1. kenjackson · 1790166115 · focus · HN ↗

         It’s seems Timnit more thinks it’s dangerous (and she may be right). Emily may more be caught up in years of linguistic domain expertise that AIs seem to have just leaped over.

         1. brainwad · 1790166273 · focus · HN ↗

            Timnit seems to mostly think it's dangerous because of things other than the model itself, e.g. AI labs' political influence and data centre resource consumption (mentioned in the article). The core thesis seems to be "wake up and stop wasting so much resources on this useless parrot".

            1. kenjackson · 1790166791 · focus · HN ↗

               She isn’t as big on P(DOOM), but she does worry about things like biological weapons or autonomous war vehicles. Her take is that they are worse than useless, but can be actively harmful.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.