| ▲ | ArcHound 6 hours ago |
| Generally, I agree. Imagine: you start working at the company with a good will towards them. As you learn more and see more decisions, you slowly realize how bad it is. Now you've already contributed. Then you leave. It might be possible to build everything with this goodwill and that's how we'd still end up with a torment nexus even if you immediately drop it. What I'm saying is, at one point you have to break the company fully. I'm not sure what more we need to wait for, if the claim "10% it ends humanity" is not enough. |
|
| ▲ | sandeepkd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is a lot more to it, an assumption is being made that somehow its easy to classify a company being god or bad and same for people. In reality, everyones life experiences shape them differently, the moral compass of right and wrong isn't same for everyone. Leaving that aside people are not just managing their feelings alone, more than often they are responsible for other people in the family as well and the impact of decision can have far reaching impact. Making a decision when you are single vs with kids and a mortgage are two different things. Good people can be in tough position where even when they do not agree they may not have much of an option but to keep going. |
| |
| ▲ | ArcHound 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think we are in agreement. What I wanted to say is that usually people start with good intentions and only later they realize they are contributing to a torment nexus. What you are saying definitely plays a role and it makes doing moral choices difficult. |
|
|
| ▲ | seiferteric 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If it's "10% it ends humanity" and "20% it solves climate change and saves humanity" then is it still bad? |
| |
| ▲ | mofeien 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Potentially. If we could put a precise probability on it, we could maybe make an informed decision on whether we want to play that Russian roulette as a species. But the reality is that experts' probabilities for human extinctions vary wildly, with the lab leaders at 20%-30% and these researchers at >10% (he didn't state how much higher...), LeCun at <0.01% and the other two godfathers of AI, Bengio and Hinton at >10%. And this decision to take our shot is not taken in a democratic way by humanity as a whole, but by a few companies racing as fast as possible. So as long as no one can put an upper bound on the extinction risk, development must be globally shut down. | | | |
| ▲ | ArcHound 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Any indication how it could solve climate change? Because I'm seeing mainly hacker attacks, job insecurity, environmental impacts and vague threats with smiling faces. | |
| ▲ | goatlover an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's bad that a few people are making such a gamble on behalf of billions. That could work if climate change were literally an asteroid about to strike the Earth and AI was the only thing that could figure out how to alter it's course before then. But it doesn't really work when climate change will unfold as a catastrophe over the next few centuries. Because then it becomes a decision the entire planet should be making over time, not a few tech billionaires and their friends in government. | |
| ▲ | spencerflem 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI is a massive contributor to climate change lol |
|
|
| ▲ | godwinson__4-8 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Compelling argument. All involved in this AI endeavor should be forced to answer: What other made up figure are you waiting for!? |
