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.
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"
heinternets · · 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.
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 ↗