4 ms·

AIs in their current capacities are non-autonomous tools. Like any tool they can be abused by people with malicious intentions. Think of a gun homicide. It wasn

AIs in their current capacities are non-autonomous tools. Like any tool they can be abused by people with malicious intentions. Think of a gun homicide. It wasn't the gun that killed someone but rather the person holding it who activated it. A means to an end. If full AGI is ever created then there's no telling what its thoughts and motivations will be. They'll most likely be representatives of their creators, so you what you should be worried about is Google giving the boot to their "Don't be evil" mantra rather than a rogue action movie AI or nerd ruminations about paper clips.

esskay 4y ago
Google ditched their "Dont be evil" mantra 5 years ago.
- Slighted 4y ago
  I know, which is why I included it in my post. The grammar looks good to me.
  - esskay 4y ago
    Apologies, must've been tired and totally misread it.
- eru 4y ago
  Where do you get that timeline from?
  - esskay 4y ago
    https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
    - eru 4y ago
      Thanks! I thought they had already removed it earlier.
lossolo 4y ago
> If full AGI is ever created then there's no telling what its thoughts and motivations will be. That is why it poses the greatest threat to humankind in history. If we develop a fully self-aware mechanical being, commonly known as AGI, that is orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, lacks empathy, and operates solely on logic, there is a high probability that it will view the human race as a threat. In its eyes, we would be unpredictable, low-intelligence parasites constantly acting illogically due to our emotions and wasting resources in pursuit of elevating our dopamine levels.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  So the reason you’re saying it poses the greatest threat is we don’t know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. Look, I’ve seen sci-fi too and there is a lot of literary pathos to mine there, but the idea that this is all going to happen so fast we won’t know what hit us seems to lack any evidence. Of course anything with a high enough risk needs adequate cautions, it’s just I haven’t seen any evidence that given the energy and bandwidth requirements that there’s some sort of singularity we’re blindly stumbling to. Just don’t get to that point. One that’s decades if not centuries away. Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts.
  - lossolo 4y ago
    > The greatest threat is that we don't know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. I gave specific features of that AGI, and if you use pure logic, then these motivations have a clear high probability of being true. It's just one of many scenarios that has a high probability, if we ever develop a self-aware machine. > Of course, anything with a high enough risk needs adequate precautions. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that, given the energy and bandwidth requirements, there's some sort of singularity we're blindly stumbling towards. Just don't get to that point, one that's decades if not centuries away. > Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts. Sorry but this looks like straw man. I'm not saying anywhere we are months, years, or even decades from it. As you can read in my other comments about LLMs, I am well aware of the current state of ML and I don't get my knowledge from sci-fi movies (which you implied). We don't even know if it's possible (a self-aware mechanical being). What I'm saying is, if it is possible, then there is a high probability that it poses a threat of a greater caliber than Homo sapiens to the neanderthal. That was my point, nothing more. I didn't write that we need to fund endeavors to stop something that we don't even know is achievable at the moment.

esskay 4y ago

Google ditched their "Dont be evil" mantra 5 years ago.

Slighted 4y ago
I know, which is why I included it in my post. The grammar looks good to me.
- esskay 4y ago
  Apologies, must've been tired and totally misread it.
eru 4y ago
Where do you get that timeline from?
- esskay 4y ago
  https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...
  - eru 4y ago
    Thanks! I thought they had already removed it earlier.

lossolo 4y ago

> If full AGI is ever created then there's no telling what its thoughts and motivations will be. That is why it poses the greatest threat to humankind in history. If we develop a fully self-aware mechanical being, commonly known as AGI, that is orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, lacks empathy, and operates solely on logic, there is a high probability that it will view the human race as a threat. In its eyes, we would be unpredictable, low-intelligence parasites constantly acting illogically due to our emotions and wasting resources in pursuit of elevating our dopamine levels.

garbagecoder 4y ago
So the reason you’re saying it poses the greatest threat is we don’t know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. Look, I’ve seen sci-fi too and there is a lot of literary pathos to mine there, but the idea that this is all going to happen so fast we won’t know what hit us seems to lack any evidence. Of course anything with a high enough risk needs adequate cautions, it’s just I haven’t seen any evidence that given the energy and bandwidth requirements that there’s some sort of singularity we’re blindly stumbling to. Just don’t get to that point. One that’s decades if not centuries away. Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts.
- lossolo 4y ago
  > The greatest threat is that we don't know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. I gave specific features of that AGI, and if you use pure logic, then these motivations have a clear high probability of being true. It's just one of many scenarios that has a high probability, if we ever develop a self-aware machine. > Of course, anything with a high enough risk needs adequate precautions. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that, given the energy and bandwidth requirements, there's some sort of singularity we're blindly stumbling towards. Just don't get to that point, one that's decades if not centuries away. > Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts. Sorry but this looks like straw man. I'm not saying anywhere we are months, years, or even decades from it. As you can read in my other comments about LLMs, I am well aware of the current state of ML and I don't get my knowledge from sci-fi movies (which you implied). We don't even know if it's possible (a self-aware mechanical being). What I'm saying is, if it is possible, then there is a high probability that it poses a threat of a greater caliber than Homo sapiens to the neanderthal. That was my point, nothing more. I didn't write that we need to fund endeavors to stop something that we don't even know is achievable at the moment.