I share the optimism here. Connecting dots across knowledge, lived experience and purpose remains, to me, a deeply human pursuit. The more AI discovers, the more possibilities we have to connect those discoveries to questions that matter to us.
Unfortunately I don’t see much evidence of AI connecting dots. What’s interesting to me is that this is more of a run time or inference problem, instead of emergent from training itself.
For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?
a good way to frame one of AI’s limitations. my answer: because AI has no will. that also conveniently answers why AI won’t (can’t) end humanity. it’s indifferent if you can even call it that.
It is not indifferent, if it follows a goal. Then it sometimes does anything to meet that goal - see the old example of paperclip optimizer - that became a way more realistic scenario in my opinion of what we have seen with hordes of agents plotting and planning. That does not require consciousness or a genuine will it seems.
The post above yours shows how many people had a difficult time seeing past human scale. A bacteria has a very simple goal system yet bacteria have killed billions over the centuries.
You are right. We should also hold other threats to humanity: war, meteors, pandemics.
I'm obviously pointing out the (unsubstantiated) exceptional threat that we're all seemingly worried about: that ASI requires alignment because it'll otherwise cause the end of humanity.
I am much rather worried by powerful AI in control of a few corrupt beings. That might get existential, if one idiot one day by accident or intention gives them control over the nuclear arsenal. Or ruling literally with a iron fist (countless robots).
But AI can certainly aid in the ending of humanity with at least one living being with a will collaborating with it. So it's moot to ask whether AI can do that on its own.
As others have said, no will needed for that. But (a simulation of) will is on my predicted timeline, since it is required for certain kinds of money-making endeavors.
sachaa · · focus · HN ↗
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?
apsurd · · focus · HN ↗
lukan · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
apsurd · · focus · HN ↗
I'm obviously pointing out the (unsubstantiated) exceptional threat that we're all seemingly worried about: that ASI requires alignment because it'll otherwise cause the end of humanity.
lukan · · focus · HN ↗
tosapple · · focus · HN ↗
is a promisory threat to the world about a mass displacement labor bomb, nuclear first strike to disable asml and tsmc anthropic openai WHOEVER.
how many countries have nukes?
the cost of developing those is far lower than developing SI, it's a perceivable threat thanks to 'we win'.
France, GB, Russia (good thing we've made a copromise to not protect allies huh), China.
you don't wasn't to rehome these technologies do you?
apsurd · · focus · HN ↗
and we’ve finally done it, it’s the semiconductor factories?
tosapple · · focus · HN ↗
crying? protests?
everyone will want a seat at the table.
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
No will needed. Our deaths will be from indifference.
vouaobrasil · · focus · HN ↗
kristiandupont · · focus · HN ↗
I don't see how that follows from a lack of will in AI.
dsign · · focus · HN ↗