| ▲ | davidguetta 8 hours ago |
| I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do. People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane. |
|
| ▲ | c-linkage 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Your lack of creativity is not a reason to believe that a super AI is harmless or less destructive than a nuclear weapon. Damage need not be limited to destruction. Introducing doubt is sufficient. Right now you have faith that digital Financial transactions can be trusted. You have faith that computer encryption can be trusted. You have faith that digital certificates will protect you. If an AI can introduce doubt into any one of those systems, that will be sufficient to bring about the destruction of those systems. Imagine a world in which you can no longer use a credit card or Apple pay. Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated. What effects do you think that would have on commerce? How quickly do you think we can return to some trustable means of commerce? Do you think it will happen before your groceries run out in your apartment? Before your grocery store can settle its debts? Before your Amazon ec2 instance runs out of credits? |
| |
|
| ▲ | nextaccountic 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's a couple of occasions that humanity was at the brink of having tens of millions of people dead by nuclear weapons, and somehow a single human interrupted the chain reaction If you repeated this experiment 100 times, how many times you think the outcome is not a massive catastrophe? 90%? 3%? |
|
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What evidence, short of an actual apocalypse happening, would invalidate that belief of yours? |
| |
| ▲ | mikestorrent 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It might be a matter of choosing which apocalypse you'd like. The non-AI state of affairs is not exactly super compelling on a long timescale right now. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | We can work on multiple things at once. Defeatism doesn't solve anything. We just have a lot of work to do in many different areas. |
| |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Depending on where you live could be considered an active apocalypse that is robots vs robots vs people in Ukraine and Gaza and Iran being live-streamed, and actively betted on. Do you have a more totalizing definition of Apocalypse? |
|
|
| ▲ | vonneumannstan 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing.
I believe you are mentally ill. >There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled Lol way to rewrite history. Nuclear armageddon is still a significant risk... |
| |
|
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled What do you mean??? Nuclear weapons can't simply be downloaded and run by anyone in the entire world. Superintelligences can. Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison, can't keep the general population fooled into thinking it's fine when democracy is falling out from under them. A nuclear attack would wake people up, superintelligence doesn't have to. This is a far bigger problem than nuclear weapons because at least we would notice nuclear weapons. At least we mostly know who has nuclear weapons. At least we have agreements about nuclear weapons. At least mutually-assured destruction is even POSSIBLE with nuclear weapons. At least those with nuclear weapons are literally at all incentivized not to use them. But AI is something that's very very easy to feel like you can get away with, and PEOPLE FUCKING ARE! And the worst part is that any random individual can be unexpectedly formidable with the help of a superintelligence and there is literally no way to know what will happen next. Anyone could do anything, any individual could make an extremely outsized impact. It's already starting to be a huge problem and we haven't even reached anything close to superintelligence yet. |
| |
| ▲ | skeledrew 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Love to see that "superintelligence" that some random person will "simply" download and run when there are relatively only few capable of running today's near-to-frontier models, and actual frontier models are still a ways from being AGI, much less getting to the point of ASI. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | People will put up with a lot. People are celebrating that you can run models on a CPU at single-digit tokens per second. You think there won't be a single person that can put up with that and also be dangerous/etc? | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's highly impractical. Imagine someone breaking into a house to steal something or otherwise, and they can only take 1 step every 20 seconds. They won't be getting anywhere, when even a child in the house can notice them and go call for help at 1 step/2 seconds and said help will come at 5 steps/second. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dlt713705 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Anyone could do anything, any individual could make an extremely outsized impact. So the problem is people. Burn them all ! | | |
| ▲ | mikestorrent 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem is indeed people. How do we make the default choices most people make, better? Consider that a lot of people will be very happy to ask an AI what to do when in the past they may have taken no advice at all. It's a hell of a burden but also a wonderful gift. If anything, progressive countries might eventually want to guarantee some basic AI access for people of all income levels. | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wouldn't be so sure. Given that the general idea is that commodity AI is terribly censored and filtered, a lot of people will probably seek out the most uncensored/abliterated models for their use, simply because they're uncomfortable with the idea of being censored or manipulated by the bigger labs. Despite that though, some people probably will benefit from the alignment done by the larger labs, though as we've seen with OpenAI's sycophancy crisis, that has been a bit hit-and-miss lately | | |
| ▲ | mikestorrent 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've tried some abliterated models. So far, they're not evil - you can make them say evil things, but they don't leap right to it without a bit of pushing. Or perhaps I'm not asking the right questions... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | phainopepla2 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? Governments all around the world copied each other with COVID laws as well, in a much shorter time frame, without LLM assistance. Social contagions exist in politicians as well as teenagers | | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? I don't have evidence that every age verification law has anything to do with AI, but it's been coming out that the movement in Australia has seemingly been done by generating mountains of LLM slop and trying to slip it through the regulators as fast as possible before anyone has enough time to figure out what's happened. | | |
|
|
