I like Tao, but it's always so sad to me to see people talk in this detached rational way about "how" to do AI without even mentioning the ethical and social issues involved. It's like pondering what's the best way to burn down the Louvre.

▲

bubblyworld 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think everybody has to pay lip service to this stuff every time they talk about AI. Many people (myself included) acknowledge these issues but have nothing to add to the conversation that hasn't been said a million times already. Tao is a mathematician - I think it's completely fine that he's focused on the quantitative aspects of this stuff, as that is where his expertise is most relevant.

▲

spuz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you not think social and ethical issues can be approached rationally? To me it sounds like Tao is concerned about the cost of running AI powered solutions and I can quite easily see how the ethical and social costs fit under that umbrella along with monetary and environmental costs.

▲

benlivengood a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think using LLMs/AI for pure mathematics is one of the very least ethically fraught use-cases. Creative works aren't being imitated, people aren't being deceived by hallucinations (literally by design; formal proof systems prevent it), from a safety perspective even a superintelligent agent that was truly limited to producing true theorems would be dramatically safer than other kinds of interactions with the world, etc.

▲

blitzar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's always so sad to me to see people banging on about the ethical and social issues involved without quantifying anything, or using dodgy projections - "at this rate it will kill 100 billion people by the end of the year".

▲

Karrot_Kream 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like your comment could be more clear and less hyperbolic or inflammatory by saying something like: “I like Tao but the ethical and social issues surrounding AI are much more important to me than discussing its specifics.”

▲

rolandog 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't agree; portraying it as an opinion has the risk of continuing to erode the world with moral relativism.

The tech — despite being sometimes impresaive — is objectively inefficient, expensive, and harmful to the environment (excessive use if energy and water for cooling), to the people located near the data centers (by stochastic leeching of coolants to the waterbed IIRC), and the economic harm done to hundreds of millions of people whose data was involuntarily used for training.

▲

Karrot_Kream 2 days ago | parent [-]

For the claim to be objective then I believe it needs objective substance to discuss. I saw none of that. I would like to see numbers, results, or something of that nature. It's fine to have subjective feelings as well but I feel it's important to clarify one's feelings especially because I see online discussion on forums become so heated so quickly which I feel degrades discussion quality.

	▲	rolandog a day ago \| parent [-]
		Let's not shift the burden of proof so irresponsibly. We've all seen the bad faith actors that questioned, for example, studies on the efficacy of wearing masks in reducing chance of transmission of airborne diseases because the study combined wearing masks AND washing hands... Those people would gladly hand wipe without toilet paper to "own the libs" or whatever hate-filled mental gymnastics strokes their ego. With that in mind, let's call things for what they are: there are multiple companies that are salivating at the prospects of being able to make the working class obsolete. There's trillions to be made in their mind. > I would like to see numbers, results, or something of that nature I would like the same thing! So far, we have seen that a very big company that had pledged, IIRC, to remain not-for-profit for the benefit of humanity sold out at the drop of a hat the moment they were able to hint Zombocom levels of possibility to investors.

▲

calf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I find it extremist and inflammatory this reoccurring—frankly conservative—tendency on HN to police any strong polemic criticism as "hyperbole" and "inflammatory". People should learn to take criticism is stride, not every strongly critical comment ought to be socially censored by tone policing it. The comparison to Louvre was a funny comment and if people didn't get that perhaps it is not too far-fetched to suggest improving on basic literary-device literacy skills.

▲

rolandog 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> what's the best way to burn down the Louvre.

"There are two schools of thought, you see..."

Joking aside, I think that's a very valid point; not sure what would be the nonreligious term for the amorality of "sins of omission"... But, in essence, one can clearly be unethical by ignoring the social responsibility we have to study who is affected by our actions.

Corporations can't really play dumb there, since they have to weigh the impacts for every project they undertake.

Also, side note... It's very telling how little control we (commoners?) have as a global society that — collectively — we're throwing mountains of cash at weapons and AI, which would directly move us closer to oblivion and further the effects of climate change (despite the majority of people not wanting wars nor being replaced by a chatbot). I would instead favor world peace; ending poverty, famine, and genocide; and, preventing further global warming.

▲

ACCount36 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And I am tired of "mentioning the ethical and social issues".

If the best you can do is bring up this garbage, then you have nothing of value to say.