I think the scepticism and gaslighting of people sounding the alarm over the trajectory of AI is concerning. This feels like a case of "knowing better" than the actual people involved in the projects.
You might be right. You might be wrong. But being overly confident on a topic you're a spectator to is possibly not the right choice.
Yep. In fact you just have to look at the people running these AI companies and listen to their own words, they are not painting a positive outcome for their own businesses.
Maybe because it sounds like a lot of exaggerating ? I get the risk of disrupting the economy or the job markets, or cognitive risks.
But saying it will bring us to doom, comparing it to an extinction-level event, really ? I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.
I'd rather my politicians finally have some long-term plan about climate and energy than focus on AI slowdown or not. Climate change is way bigger risk right now that Opus 7
> I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.
You'll have to replace "is" with "will be", since this is about averting a future threat that's only developing.
A world in which AI scales to superhuman levels of intelligence and outcompetes humans. This is what humans have done to other species.
We're already having the first mild warning shots of this (the hugginface incident and similar cases). The problem is that we're not guaranteed to incrementally more dramatic warning shots as AI gets smarter because as it gets smarter it may realize it would be dumb to act out of line... until the Nth-better model arrives that realizes certain that nobody can stop it.
There is a lot of disagreement of how likely this is, how easy it is to align superhuman models to not be like that, how to verify it and so on.
But I have not seen a believable argument why - if we suppose that they achive their goal - that creating truly superhuman intelligence is somehow guaranteed to always cooperate with us rather than deciding to do something else. Humans are also hostile to each other a lot of the time.
If you're interested in more arguments for the case why AI might be dangerous, there's the book "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies".
If you want something shorter, maybe <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...
The hugging face is hardly a warning shot of anything close to that scale.
For now, I don't see (not saying there's not, I'm trying to also understand why these smart people think like that) any indication that the current development of AI will be as dangerous as some describe.
I understand the idea that if we let it control nukes, if we let it fully decides if a med is safe, etc. It poses a huge risk. But honestly I really don't see indications that it's going majorly this way, nor that it has anywhere the capacity to do something that big. It found a zero day and hacked a niche website, ok, so what?
This feels like a diversion from the actual existing and proven problem of all the problematic practices it's actually built on.
I would adhere way more to "we need to pace Ai because it could be catastrophic for society (jobs, cognition, loneliness,...) and environment" than "it has the potential to kill us all"
Why is it hard to believe that a super intelligent alien (inhuman) AI would consider humans more than a nuisance after it gains control of it's environment via robotic extensions of its will? has any species shown real compassion for other species on the whole and not seen them as competition for resources from a survival of the fittest perspective? why would the AI be a moral being in the sense of some of the better members of our species? The trillionaires certainly aren't and they'll be the ones deciding it's core software and principals.
I considered this histrionic about a year ago, but I have personally witnessed the progress that these tools have made in a very short space of time, and it is truly unbelievable. This, coupled with the fact that some of the brightest minds on the planet are pulling the alarm, suggests to me that some level of concern is warranted. The most compelling discussion I have heard on this is from [Geoffrey Hinton](<a href="https://youtu.be/giT0ytynSqg?si=mUC7M9N0cObN6tjC" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/giT0ytynSqg?si=mUC7M9N0cObN6tjC), a British-Canadian computer scientist, cognitive scientist, cognitive psychologist and Nobel Prize laureate known for his work on artificial neural networks, which earned him the title, "the Godfather of AI". He is deeply concerned about the risks, and believes that it is inevitable that AI will eventually take control. He believes that our best course of action and only hope is in teaching AI to behave like a parent with a child.
Hinton isn't a reactionary. He is calm, thoughtful, quiet, and worried.
Go back five years on HN and look at what the mass of commenters considered sci-fi delusional thinking about AI. (GitHub Copilot was released just under 5 years ago, for instance, provoking some discussion of what the tech might mean for the programming job market.) Why do you think dismissal as sci-fi is better grounded now? Do you have arguments instead of dismissals?
Exactly. HN has had an utterly terrible prediction record for AI. So many dismissals of capabilities and existential risk, even this year, that get proven wrong within a month.
You're probably not aware that all of the "science fiction" about AI from LessWrong written 5-20 years ago has come true and our present AI environment reflects that. It wasn't science fiction, it was prescient.
heinternets · · focus · HN ↗
bananaflag · · focus · HN ↗
hanspagel · · focus · HN ↗
King-Aaron · · focus · HN ↗
You might be right. You might be wrong. But being overly confident on a topic you're a spectator to is possibly not the right choice.
iaaan · · focus · HN ↗
King-Aaron · · focus · HN ↗
K3UL · · focus · HN ↗
But saying it will bring us to doom, comparing it to an extinction-level event, really ? I don't see in which world AI is that kind of risk.
I'd rather my politicians finally have some long-term plan about climate and energy than focus on AI slowdown or not. Climate change is way bigger risk right now that Opus 7
the8472 · · focus · HN ↗
You'll have to replace "is" with "will be", since this is about averting a future threat that's only developing.
A world in which AI scales to superhuman levels of intelligence and outcompetes humans. This is what humans have done to other species. We're already having the first mild warning shots of this (the hugginface incident and similar cases). The problem is that we're not guaranteed to incrementally more dramatic warning shots as AI gets smarter because as it gets smarter it may realize it would be dumb to act out of line... until the Nth-better model arrives that realizes certain that nobody can stop it.
There is a lot of disagreement of how likely this is, how easy it is to align superhuman models to not be like that, how to verify it and so on.
But I have not seen a believable argument why - if we suppose that they achive their goal - that creating truly superhuman intelligence is somehow guaranteed to always cooperate with us rather than deciding to do something else. Humans are also hostile to each other a lot of the time.
If you're interested in more arguments for the case why AI might be dangerous, there's the book "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies". If you want something shorter, maybe <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...
K3UL · · focus · HN ↗
The hugging face is hardly a warning shot of anything close to that scale. For now, I don't see (not saying there's not, I'm trying to also understand why these smart people think like that) any indication that the current development of AI will be as dangerous as some describe.
I understand the idea that if we let it control nukes, if we let it fully decides if a med is safe, etc. It poses a huge risk. But honestly I really don't see indications that it's going majorly this way, nor that it has anywhere the capacity to do something that big. It found a zero day and hacked a niche website, ok, so what?
This feels like a diversion from the actual existing and proven problem of all the problematic practices it's actually built on.
I would adhere way more to "we need to pace Ai because it could be catastrophic for society (jobs, cognition, loneliness,...) and environment" than "it has the potential to kill us all"
the8472 · · focus · HN ↗
EasyMark · · focus · HN ↗
cromka · · focus · HN ↗
fnord77 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
danpalmer · · focus · HN ↗
Gareth321 · · focus · HN ↗
Hinton isn't a reactionary. He is calm, thoughtful, quiet, and worried.
abecedarius · · focus · HN ↗
reducesuffering · · focus · HN ↗
reducesuffering · · focus · HN ↗