zlacker

>>tim_sw+(OP)
From a layman's perspective when it comes to cutting edge AI, I can't help but be a bit turned off by some of the copy. It seems it goes out of its way to use purposefully exhuberant language as a way to make the risks seem even more significant, just so as an offshoot it implies that the technology being worked on is so advanced. I'm trying to understand why it rubs me particularly the wrong way here, when, frankly, it is just about the norm anywhere else? (see tesla with FSD, etc.)

>>Chicag+m9
The extinction risk from unaligned supterintelligent AGI is real, it's just often dismissed (imo) because it's outside the window of risks that are acceptable and high status to take seriously. People often have an initial knee-jerk negative reaction to it (for not crazy reasons, lots of stuff is often overhyped), but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's uncool to look like an alarmist nut, but sometimes there's no socially acceptable alarm and the risks are real: https://intelligence.org/2017/10/13/fire-alarm/

It's worth looking at the underlying arguments earnestly, you can with an initial skepticism but I was persuaded. Alignment is also been something MIRI and others have been worried about since as early as 2007 (maybe earlier?) so it's also a case of a called shot, not a recent reaction to hype/new LLM capability.

Others have also changed their mind when they looked, for example:

- https://twitter.com/repligate/status/1676507258954416128?s=2...

- Longer form: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kAmgdEjq2eYQkB5PP/douglas-ho...

For a longer podcast introduction to the ideas: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/116...

>>goneho+gf
> The extinction risk from unaligned supterintelligent AGI is real, it's just often dismissed (imo) because it's outside the window of risks that are acceptable and high status to take seriously.

No. It’s not taken seriously because it’s fundamentally unserious. It’s religion. Sometime in the near future this all powerful being will kill us all by somehow grabbing all power over the physical world by being so clever to trick us until it is too late. This is literally the plot to a B-movie. Not only is there no evidence for this even existing in the near future, there’s no theoretical understanding how one would even do this, nor why someone would even hook it up to all these physical systems. I guess we’re supposed to just take it on faith that this Forbin Project is going to just spontaneously hack its way into every system without anyone noticing.

It’s bullshit. It’s pure bullshit funded and spread by the very people that do not want us to worry about real implications of real systems today. Care not about your racist algorithms! For someday soon, a giant squid robot will turn you into a giant inefficient battery in a VR world, or maybe just kill you and wear your flesh as to lure more humans to their violent deaths!

Anyone that takes this seriously, is the exact same type of rube that fell for apocalyptic cults for millennia.

>>jonath+tU
What you say is extremely unscientific. If you believe science and logic go hand in hand then:

A) We are developing AI right now and itnisngetting better

B) we do not know how exactly these things work because most of them are black boxer

C) we do not know if something goes wrong how to stop it.

The above 3 things are factual truth.

Now your only argument here could be that there is 0 risk whatsoever. This claim is totally unscientific because you are predicting 0 risk in an unknown system that is evolving.

It's religious yes. But vice versa. The Cult of venevolent AI god is religious not the other way around. There is some kind of inner mysterious working in people like you and Marc Andersen that pipularized these ideas but pmarca is clearly money biased here.

>>arisAl+HV
I have heard one too many podcasts with Marc Andreessen. He has plenty of transparently obvious arguments to why AI must be good. His most laughable point was to suggest that the fact that ChatGPT seems to be ethical that all AI models will be ethical, a point which I believe epitomizes either his technical ignorance on the topic, a lack of logical rigor, and/or some amount of dishonesty.

There are two kinds of risk: the risk from these models as deployed as tools and as deployed as autonomous agents.

The first is already quite dangerous and frankly already here. An algorithm to invent novel chemical weapons is already possible. The risk here isn’t Terminator, it’s rogue group or military we don’t like getting access. There are plenty of other dangerous ways autonomous systems could be deployed as tools.

As far as autonomous agents go, I believe that corporations already exhibit most if not all characteristics of AI, and demonstrate what it’s like to live in a world of paperclip maximizers. Not only do they destroy the environment and bend laws to achieve their goals, they also corrupt the political system meant to keep them in check.