3 ms·

> But fun is not a compelling reason to produce something that is intended to harm us, and has a proven record of being able to harm us. Just to add fuel to th

> But fun is not a compelling reason to produce something that is intended to harm us, and has a proven record of being able to harm us. Just to add fuel to the dumpster fire, it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. This is the kind of r/confidentlyincorrect you see if you play with the chat bot for a little while.

_dain_ 4y ago
>it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. it's not describing a conspiracy, it's describing a mindset/culture. check the twitter feeds of the AI boosters. they're revelling in making people feel afraid and worthless. example: this whole thread: https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1601786712715251712 https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/160178671271525171...
- IshKebab 4y ago
  It sounds like a conspiracy to me. There's no way GPT was created with the intention of harming people. That's obviously nonsense. Twitter only lets me read the first Tweet in that thread without logging in but I didn't see any of what you describe there.
  - willnonya 4y ago
    I don't really have a take on the specifics here but there have been many similar threads where the intent wasn't to cause harm but the steps taken to 'help' inevitably led to harm instead. It's easy for people to get their through a mixture of hubris and short sightedness. What I'm getting at here is to not be too hard on the conspiracy types. Just because they can't articulate these things in ways we take seriously doesn't mean there isn't something to watch for.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      Sure but there's an enormous fundamental difference between doing something with the primary intent to cause harm, and doing something that happens to cause unintended harm as a side effect. They're completely different and mixing them up is typical conspiracy nonsense.

_dain_ 4y ago

>it raised my eyebrows that the author simply asserted conspiratorial knowledge of the intentions for its creation. it's not describing a conspiracy, it's describing a mindset/culture. check the twitter feeds of the AI boosters. they're revelling in making people feel afraid and worthless. example: this whole thread: https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1601786712715251712 https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/160178671271525171...

IshKebab 4y ago
It sounds like a conspiracy to me. There's no way GPT was created with the intention of harming people. That's obviously nonsense. Twitter only lets me read the first Tweet in that thread without logging in but I didn't see any of what you describe there.
- willnonya 4y ago
  I don't really have a take on the specifics here but there have been many similar threads where the intent wasn't to cause harm but the steps taken to 'help' inevitably led to harm instead. It's easy for people to get their through a mixture of hubris and short sightedness. What I'm getting at here is to not be too hard on the conspiracy types. Just because they can't articulate these things in ways we take seriously doesn't mean there isn't something to watch for.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    Sure but there's an enormous fundamental difference between doing something with the primary intent to cause harm, and doing something that happens to cause unintended harm as a side effect. They're completely different and mixing them up is typical conspiracy nonsense.