Thread

1. edot · 1791067681 · focus · HN ↗

   Absolutely based. Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown. Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.

   There are lots of real worries (government use to suppress the people with minimal manpower or popular support, brainrot and fake news, unemployment due to the belief that LLMs can replace people, education collapse, etc.) we should instead be looking at. This whole rogue AI shtick is tiresome.

   1. Barrin92 · 1791070504 · focus · HN ↗

      >Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.

      I saw that episode too and he genuinely looked completely out of it, even in terms of his temperament and how he was coming at Klein for putting common questions in front of him, some people are genuinely starting to lose it.

      I also found the whole debate about cyber-security and 'rogue' software so bizarre because dangerous malware isn't a new thing, and it's often dangerous not because it's intelligent but just the opposite, because it's tiny, viral and fast. Which describes everything that kills humanity in far larger numbers than anything complex, big and intelligent

      1. jswelker · 1791071216 · focus · HN ↗

         Wasn't Bill Gates mostly just saying terrorists could use AI to build a bioweapon? That sounds legit to me.

         1. zozbot234 · 1791072179 · focus · HN ↗

            It's not "legit", it's pointless scaremongering about entirely speculative future dynamics. Current LLMs can't "build" anything novel in this broad space. What if future AIs make it a lot easier for researchers to defend against plausible bioweapons? That's also reasonably possible, and would be a reason to deploy bio-capable AIs more broadly (with meaningful safeguards of course. But these are comparatively cheap because worthwhile bio research is resource-intensive already). At the very least, it'd be nice to have an AI model that doesn't immediately refuse to answer questions about junior-high Biology class.

            1. jswelker · 1791072417 · focus · HN ↗

               So a terrorist can't use a local llm to help grow anthrax? That is not farfetched at all.

               AI democratized the knowledge needed to build bioweapons. Like how with a 3d printer anyone can build a gun with no expertise.

               1. com2kid · 1791086352 · focus · HN ↗

                  [delayed]

                  1. altmanaltman · 1791090789 · focus · HN ↗

                     Also it kind of infantalizes terrorists as if not having an LLM access or 3d printer is what stopping their attacks. Like okay I ask LLM to help me create a dirty nuclear bomb but the moment i start taking steps to do that, law enforcement will already be tracking me.

                     Most people saying LLMs can make terrorism easy have never given doing terroism a serious thought imo.

                     1. hackinthebochs · 1791108770 · focus · HN ↗

                        The raw materials to make bioweapons are easily purchased on line with no pre-emptive tracing. It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.

                        1. simoncion · 1791115169 · focus · HN ↗

                           > It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.

                           Mmm. Especially in this arena, LLM assistance is like The Anarchist's Cookbook. A quarter of the time following the instructions will seriously injure you... and if you know enough to identify which instructions are the hazardous ones, you know enough to not need the assistance.

                           1. hackinthebochs · 1791121777 · focus · HN ↗

                              That may be true (and I hope it is). But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.

                              1. simoncion · 1791124119 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.

                                 The Sun is going to fail in many hundreds of millions or a few billion years. This will either turn the surface of the earth into slag, freeze it, or both. Either way, all life on the planet is doomed. This fact is not a reason to fail to switch from hydrocarbon-burning electricity generators to photovoltaic, fission, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal electricity generators. Extinction events that will happen in the extremely distant future shouldn't prevent us from doing the things that are smart to do in the medium- and long-term.

                                 But, -to bring things to the present day- companies that are solidly on track to hit their promised growth targets don't come out and publicly say "We're working on WMDs. [0] We cannot safely work on these WMDs. We refuse to stop working on these WMDs. However, if you lawmakers make special laws and regulations just for us and include us in the process, we'll be quite happy to submit the stop work order to our employees!". That's a statement you only make if there's no way in hell you're going to keep your promises and you're willing to risk jail time and annihilation of your companies for a shot at being able to con Congress into giving you an ironclad excuse to fail to keep your promises.

                                 Given enough time and focused effort, we will end up with widely-available automated librarians that are very good. We're not there yet, and -based on current events- are absolutely not going to get there in the near future.

                                 [0] Anything with a 10% chance of destroying all humanity is a WMD.

                                 1. aesthesia · 1791140703 · focus · HN ↗

                                    > The Sun is going to fail in somewhere between many hundreds of millions and a few billion years.

                                    Cool, what does a process that's about 9 orders of magnitude slower than AI development have to tell us about AI risks?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.