5 ms·

What about the glaring safety implications of the custody of this power being in the hands of a relatively small number of people, any of whom may be compelled

What about the glaring safety implications of the custody of this power being in the hands of a relatively small number of people, any of whom may be compelled at any point to divulge that power to those with bad intentions? Secretly? Conversely, if all actors are given equal access at the same time, no such lone bad actor can be in a position to maintain a hidden advantage. OpenAI's actions continue to be more than merely annoying.

dna_polymerase 4y ago
> What about the glaring safety implications of the custody of this power being in the hands of a relatively small number of people, any of whom may be compelled at any point to divulge that power to those with bad intentions? Secretly? What you are looking for is a publication known as "Industrial Society and Its Future"
- greggsy 4y ago
  More commonly known as “ The Unabomber Manifesto”[1] > 1995 anti-technology essay by Ted Kaczynski… contends that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology, while forcing humans to adapt to machinery, creating a sociopolitical order that suppresses human freedom and potential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto
  - spurgu 4y ago
    Available for free online in many places, for example: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ... I agree very much with Teddy about the problem but I don't condone his solution. I don't have a better one though.
    - gundamdoubleO 4y ago
      I'm sure you can come up with something that doesn't involve murdering innocent people
      - spurgu 4y ago
        I would sure hope so, but so far I haven't seen anything convincing. The industrial machinery keeps marching on. At this point I'm predicting that the transition to renewables will fail due to the enormous costs involved (aside from transportation there are also things like converting metal industries to electric), combined with increased EROEI of fossil fuels eventually making extraction too expensive to maintain expected outputs. It's still somewhat far into the future but it's seems to be happening, which is a comfort from the perspective of Ted's insights, but on the other hand it's not going to be any less violent, even though it would happen as an unintended side effect rather than through conscious effort. People will once again need to become skillful in multiple areas, compared to the current specialization economy where every person is pretty much useless unless part of the "machinery".
      - gowld 4y ago
        > murdering innocent people If you are refering to the bombing campaign, that was a publicity campaign for the manifesto, not related to the content of the manifesto. I don't think the manifesto itself advocated violence.
        spurgu 4y ago
        Indeed. 193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.
    - gowld 4y ago
      > 172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. > 174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite-just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.
      - komali2 4y ago
        I always thought a good addendum to 174 is that the ai will be compelled to generate extremely effective propaganda to convince the non elite that this situation is good.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  I don't really understand.. Pretty sure he wasn't worried about "safety implications" in that. Is this just like a snarky thing? Like having any kind of critiques about technology means you must be allied with the unabomber? People have spilled a lot more ink than that on this subject! And most of them weren't also terrorists.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
That doesn't make sense to me. Would rather you have it in the hands of people who think a lot about safety, but might be compelled to give it to bad actors, or would you rather just give it to bad actors right away? It's not a zero-sum game where you can level the playing field and say everything's good.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  People who think a lot about safety are the bad actors when 1. there are incentives other than safety at play and 2 . nobody actually knows what safety entails because the tech is so new
- autoexec 4y ago
  I'd rather have it in the hands of everybody so that we can decide for ourselves what this means for safety, everyone can benefit from the new technology without restriction, and so that we are not dependent on someone else's benevolence for our protection or for access to powerful new technology. Leveling the playing field won't instantly make everyone safe, but leaving it uneven certainly doesn't either.
  - MauranKilom 4y ago
    It's not clear to me how your argument would work for GPT-4 when it's clearly not reasonable for nukes.
    - LinXitoW 4y ago
      We elect the people with the nukes (in theory). Don't remember electing OpenAI. Dito for the sewage/water system or other critical infrastructure. Not saying OpenAI needs to be elected or not, just expanding on what (I think) they meant.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      This is the same argument people use against the 2nd amendment, but it fails for similar reasons here. If we accept that the public having access to GPT-4 has the same level of risk as the public having access to nukes would than I'd argue that we should treat GPT-4 the same way as nukes and restrict access to only the military. I don't think that's the case here though and that since the risks are very different, we should be fine with not treating them the same.

dna_polymerase 4y ago

> What about the glaring safety implications of the custody of this power being in the hands of a relatively small number of people, any of whom may be compelled at any point to divulge that power to those with bad intentions? Secretly? What you are looking for is a publication known as "Industrial Society and Its Future"

greggsy 4y ago
More commonly known as “ The Unabomber Manifesto”[1] > 1995 anti-technology essay by Ted Kaczynski… contends that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology, while forcing humans to adapt to machinery, creating a sociopolitical order that suppresses human freedom and potential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber_Manifesto
- spurgu 4y ago
  Available for free online in many places, for example: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ... I agree very much with Teddy about the problem but I don't condone his solution. I don't have a better one though.
  - gundamdoubleO 4y ago
    I'm sure you can come up with something that doesn't involve murdering innocent people
    - spurgu 4y ago
      I would sure hope so, but so far I haven't seen anything convincing. The industrial machinery keeps marching on. At this point I'm predicting that the transition to renewables will fail due to the enormous costs involved (aside from transportation there are also things like converting metal industries to electric), combined with increased EROEI of fossil fuels eventually making extraction too expensive to maintain expected outputs. It's still somewhat far into the future but it's seems to be happening, which is a comfort from the perspective of Ted's insights, but on the other hand it's not going to be any less violent, even though it would happen as an unintended side effect rather than through conscious effort. People will once again need to become skillful in multiple areas, compared to the current specialization economy where every person is pretty much useless unless part of the "machinery".
    - gowld 4y ago
      > murdering innocent people If you are refering to the bombing campaign, that was a publicity campaign for the manifesto, not related to the content of the manifesto. I don't think the manifesto itself advocated violence.
      - spurgu 4y ago
        Indeed. 193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.
  - gowld 4y ago
    > 172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. > 174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite-just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.
    - komali2 4y ago
      I always thought a good addendum to 174 is that the ai will be compelled to generate extremely effective propaganda to convince the non elite that this situation is good.
beepbooptheory 4y ago
I don't really understand.. Pretty sure he wasn't worried about "safety implications" in that. Is this just like a snarky thing? Like having any kind of critiques about technology means you must be allied with the unabomber? People have spilled a lot more ink than that on this subject! And most of them weren't also terrorists.

6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago

That doesn't make sense to me. Would rather you have it in the hands of people who think a lot about safety, but might be compelled to give it to bad actors, or would you rather just give it to bad actors right away? It's not a zero-sum game where you can level the playing field and say everything's good.

mxkopy 4y ago
People who think a lot about safety are the bad actors when 1. there are incentives other than safety at play and 2 . nobody actually knows what safety entails because the tech is so new
autoexec 4y ago
I'd rather have it in the hands of everybody so that we can decide for ourselves what this means for safety, everyone can benefit from the new technology without restriction, and so that we are not dependent on someone else's benevolence for our protection or for access to powerful new technology. Leveling the playing field won't instantly make everyone safe, but leaving it uneven certainly doesn't either.
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  It's not clear to me how your argument would work for GPT-4 when it's clearly not reasonable for nukes.
  - LinXitoW 4y ago
    We elect the people with the nukes (in theory). Don't remember electing OpenAI. Dito for the sewage/water system or other critical infrastructure. Not saying OpenAI needs to be elected or not, just expanding on what (I think) they meant.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    This is the same argument people use against the 2nd amendment, but it fails for similar reasons here. If we accept that the public having access to GPT-4 has the same level of risk as the public having access to nukes would than I'd argue that we should treat GPT-4 the same way as nukes and restrict access to only the military. I don't think that's the case here though and that since the risks are very different, we should be fine with not treating them the same.