> has the potential to supercharge technology and productivity, which would massively benefit humanity

The opportunities you chose to list are the greedy ones.

> Yes there are risks, which have to be managed.

How?

As a reminder, we've known about the effect of burning coal on the climate for well over a century, we knew that said climate change would be socially and economically disasterous for half a century, yet the only real progress we're making is because green became cheaper in the short term not just the long term and the man in charge of the USA is still calling climate change and green energy a hoax.

Right now, keeping LLMs aligned with us is easy mode: they're relatively stupid, we can inspect the activations while they run, we can read the transcripts of their "thoughts" when they use that mode… and yet Grok called itself Mecha Hitler, which the US government followed up by getting it integrated into their systems, helping the Pentagon with [classified] and the department of health to advise the general public which vegetables are best inserted rectally.

We are idiots speed-running into something shiny that we don't understand. If we are very very lucky, the shiny thing will not be the headlamp of a fast approaching train.

▲

slibhb an hour ago | parent [-]

> The opportunities you chose to list are the greedy ones.

Technology covers healthcare. I don't see how it's "greedy" to want to cure cancer. But on some level I guess "wanting life to be better" is greedy.

Your attitude is very European, and it's basically why your continent is being left behind. I'm not totally against Europe becoming the world's retirement home, as long as there are places in the world where people are allowed to innovate.

	▲	ben_w an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Technology covers healthcare. If you'd chosen to list that in the first place, I wouldn't have said what I did; "supercharge technology and productivity" is looking at everything through the lens of money and profit, not the lens of improving the human condition. > Your attitude is very European, and it's basically why your continent is being left behind And yours is very American. You talk about managing the risks, but the moment you see anyone doing so, you're against it. And of course, Europe does have AI, both because keeping up is so much easier and cheaper than being bleeding edge on everything all the time, and of course, how DeepMind may be owned by Google but is a British thing. Plus: https://mistral.ai Also, to be blunt, China's almost certain to win any economic or literal arms race you think you're part of; they make too much critical hardware now. > as long as there are places in the world where people are allowed to innovate. I would like there to be a world. When people worry about the end of the world, they usually don't mean to imply its physical disassembly. Sometimes people even respond as if speakers did mean that, saying things like "nukes or climate change wouldn't actually destroy the planet, it will still be here, spinning", as if this was the point. AI is one of the few things that could, actually, literally, end up with the planet being physically disassembled. "All it needs" is solving the extremely hard challenges of a von Neumann replicator, and, well, solving hard problems is kinda the point of making AI in the first place.