zlacker

That’s the funny thing isn’t it? Hinton, Bengio, and Sutskever, chief scientist of the tech behind OpenAI, all have strong opinions one way, but HN armchair experts handwave it away as fear mongering. Reminds me of climate change deniers. People just viscerally hate staring down upcoming disasters.

>>reduce+(OP)
Not surprising when you consider the volume of posts on GPT threads hand-wringing about "free speech" because the chatbot won't use slurs.

>>reduce+(OP)
Yann LeCunn is a strong counter to the doomerism as one example. Jeremy Howard is another example. There are plenty of high profile, and distinguished researchers who don't buy into that line of thinking. None of them are eschewing safety taking into account the realities of how the technology can be used, but they aren't running the AI will kill us all line up the flagpole.

>>reduce+(OP)
And I can cite tons of other AI experts who disagree with that. Even the people you listed have a much more nuanced opinion compared to the batshit insane AI doomerism that is common in some circles. So why compare it to climate change that has an overwhelming scientific consensus? That's quite a dishonest way to frame the debate.

>>rchaud+s1
The only hand wringing is coming from white privileged liberals from SV who absolutely cannot fathom that the rest of the world does not want them to control what AI can and cannot say.

You can try framing it as some sort of "bad racists" versus the good and virtuous gatekeepers, but the reality is that it's a bunch of nerds with sometimes super insane beliefs (the SF AI field is full of effective altruists who think AI is the most important issue in the world and weirdos in general) that will have an oversized control on what can and can't be thought. It's just good old white saviorism but worse.

Again, just saying "stop caring about muh freeze peach!!" just doesn't work coming from one of the most privileged groups in the entire world (AI techbros and their entourage). Not when it's such a crucial new technology