3 ms·

Why is it worse for AI and not for nukes?

JohnFen 4y ago
I understand that we probably disagree about this, but I don't think AI poses risks that are even remotely in the ballpark of the risks of nukes. If my neighbor has a nuke, he can (accidentally or deliberately) take out everyone around him with ease. AI can't.
- flangola7 4y ago
  At this exact moment? No. But what about when it gets used for computer worms, trained on malicious hacking techniques, and it spreads through networks around the globe leaving a wake of destroyed infrastructure? This could happen as soon as this year. Modern defenses cannot stop dedicated offensive teams and now those abilities can be automated and scaled. This could be launched by your neighbor. Or how about slightly later when a multimodal model is trained to run an autonomous weapon system? Anyone with access to a metalshop and electric motors will be able to produce terminator-like killing machines. Robotics still has some distance to go but it's probably good enough to run a gymbal turret with superhuman accuracy and speed. A small previously insignificant nation or even organization could retrofit existing platforms with such technology - guns that don't miss, missiles that ignore flares and chaff, and point defenses that shoot incoming projectiles out of the sky, and use it to steamroll much larger powers. Not to mention the power of persuasive communication itself. Tyrants are not indestructible dragons, they just know to talk humans into killing other humans. I'm half sleep and even I can see that these possibilities are already here, much less what will be possible in coming months and years.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > Modern defenses cannot stop dedicated offensive teams and now those abilities can be automated and scaled. This could be launched by your neighbor. That's already been true for years (aside from my neighbors being able to do it at an effective scale), no AI is needed. And AI wouldn't make it easier for my neighbors to develop this sort of machinery. So, in my view, that problem is orthogonal to AI. > Anyone with access to a metalshop and electric motors will be able to produce terminator-like killing machines. I don't think the thing that makes it difficult for my neighbor to build an effective autonomous killing machine is AI. You could build a very effective one using basic heuristics. The limitation is about actually building the machinery. So I don't think AI is a game-changer here, either. Also, you're implying AGI here -- which is something that doesn't exist, and is very unlikely to exist anytime soon. > guns that don't miss, missiles that ignore flares and chaff, and point defenses that shoot incoming projectiles out of the sky, and use it to steamroll much larger powers. Also something that can be done right now, outside of being completely infallible. AI won't bring infallibility with it, so I'm not seeing how that changes anything. But here, you're no longer talking about individual action anyway, so it's a bit off-topic. You're talking about governmental or corporate action. > Not to mention the power of persuasive communication itself. Yep, current systems are clearly amplifiers of this. But even if you're 100% right in your predictions, none of those things are nearly as bad as everyone having their own nuke.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      >That's already been true for years (aside from my neighbors being able to do it at an effective scale), no AI is needed. And AI wouldn't make it easier for my neighbors to develop this sort of machinery. Scale matters. When your neighbor can just type in the prompt "Destroy as much critical infrastructure as possible", that is as destructive as nukes. I feel like you're just being lazy and unimaginative. I'm not willing to stake the future of humanity on that.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        > When your neighbor can just type in the prompt "Destroy as much critical infrastructure as possible", that is as destructive as nukes. True. When that's even a remote possibility of being something that could be done, then I may change my opinion. > I feel like you're just being lazy and unimaginative. Have I made you angry or something here? I can imagine all of these sorts of doomsday scenarios right along with you. But, unless there's some sort of indication that they're anything but fantasy, it seems unwise to form opinions about reality on them.
        flangola7 4y ago
        You people really won't believe the leopard is real until it tears out your jugular, will you? Comments like this are better proof than anything that humans will be trivial to replace.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        I don't need a leopard to tear out my jugular to think it's real. I'd settle for just spotting one.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You keep arguing for keeping it exclusively in the hands of tyrants and sociopaths by pointing out how bad it would be if tyrants and sociopaths had it.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      That is not at all what I have said, and if that's the impression you got then your reading skills are sorely lacking.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You just listed a bunch of ways a small number of people with AI could hurt, kill, or control a large number of people in the same breath as arguing for keeping it exclusively in the hands of those who currently have a proven history of hurting, killing or controlling others in order to hoard wealth.
        flangola7 4y ago
        I have already informed you that you are incorrect and given you direction to go brush up your reading skills. That was not an invitation for backtalk. Which part of this do you not understand?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        I understand perfectly what you said, and pointed out how it conflicted with what you had previously said. Now you are doubling down on trying to claim your contradictions are somehow my fault and following it up by acting like you're a bad parent or something with that backtalk comment.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        Maybe the part where you seem to think you have some sort of authority to tell people what to do and not do?

I understand that we probably disagree about this, but I don't think AI poses risks that are even remotely in the ballpark of the risks of nukes. If my neighbor has a nuke, he can (accidentally or deliberately) take out everyone around him with ease. AI can't.

flangola7 4y ago
At this exact moment? No. But what about when it gets used for computer worms, trained on malicious hacking techniques, and it spreads through networks around the globe leaving a wake of destroyed infrastructure? This could happen as soon as this year. Modern defenses cannot stop dedicated offensive teams and now those abilities can be automated and scaled. This could be launched by your neighbor. Or how about slightly later when a multimodal model is trained to run an autonomous weapon system? Anyone with access to a metalshop and electric motors will be able to produce terminator-like killing machines. Robotics still has some distance to go but it's probably good enough to run a gymbal turret with superhuman accuracy and speed. A small previously insignificant nation or even organization could retrofit existing platforms with such technology - guns that don't miss, missiles that ignore flares and chaff, and point defenses that shoot incoming projectiles out of the sky, and use it to steamroll much larger powers. Not to mention the power of persuasive communication itself. Tyrants are not indestructible dragons, they just know to talk humans into killing other humans. I'm half sleep and even I can see that these possibilities are already here, much less what will be possible in coming months and years.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Modern defenses cannot stop dedicated offensive teams and now those abilities can be automated and scaled. This could be launched by your neighbor. That's already been true for years (aside from my neighbors being able to do it at an effective scale), no AI is needed. And AI wouldn't make it easier for my neighbors to develop this sort of machinery. So, in my view, that problem is orthogonal to AI. > Anyone with access to a metalshop and electric motors will be able to produce terminator-like killing machines. I don't think the thing that makes it difficult for my neighbor to build an effective autonomous killing machine is AI. You could build a very effective one using basic heuristics. The limitation is about actually building the machinery. So I don't think AI is a game-changer here, either. Also, you're implying AGI here -- which is something that doesn't exist, and is very unlikely to exist anytime soon. > guns that don't miss, missiles that ignore flares and chaff, and point defenses that shoot incoming projectiles out of the sky, and use it to steamroll much larger powers. Also something that can be done right now, outside of being completely infallible. AI won't bring infallibility with it, so I'm not seeing how that changes anything. But here, you're no longer talking about individual action anyway, so it's a bit off-topic. You're talking about governmental or corporate action. > Not to mention the power of persuasive communication itself. Yep, current systems are clearly amplifiers of this. But even if you're 100% right in your predictions, none of those things are nearly as bad as everyone having their own nuke.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    >That's already been true for years (aside from my neighbors being able to do it at an effective scale), no AI is needed. And AI wouldn't make it easier for my neighbors to develop this sort of machinery. Scale matters. When your neighbor can just type in the prompt "Destroy as much critical infrastructure as possible", that is as destructive as nukes. I feel like you're just being lazy and unimaginative. I'm not willing to stake the future of humanity on that.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > When your neighbor can just type in the prompt "Destroy as much critical infrastructure as possible", that is as destructive as nukes. True. When that's even a remote possibility of being something that could be done, then I may change my opinion. > I feel like you're just being lazy and unimaginative. Have I made you angry or something here? I can imagine all of these sorts of doomsday scenarios right along with you. But, unless there's some sort of indication that they're anything but fantasy, it seems unwise to form opinions about reality on them.
      - flangola7 4y ago
        You people really won't believe the leopard is real until it tears out your jugular, will you? Comments like this are better proof than anything that humans will be trivial to replace.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        I don't need a leopard to tear out my jugular to think it's real. I'd settle for just spotting one.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You keep arguing for keeping it exclusively in the hands of tyrants and sociopaths by pointing out how bad it would be if tyrants and sociopaths had it.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    That is not at all what I have said, and if that's the impression you got then your reading skills are sorely lacking.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You just listed a bunch of ways a small number of people with AI could hurt, kill, or control a large number of people in the same breath as arguing for keeping it exclusively in the hands of those who currently have a proven history of hurting, killing or controlling others in order to hoard wealth.
      - flangola7 4y ago
        I have already informed you that you are incorrect and given you direction to go brush up your reading skills. That was not an invitation for backtalk. Which part of this do you not understand?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        I understand perfectly what you said, and pointed out how it conflicted with what you had previously said. Now you are doubling down on trying to claim your contradictions are somehow my fault and following it up by acting like you're a bad parent or something with that backtalk comment.
        JohnFen 4y ago
        Maybe the part where you seem to think you have some sort of authority to tell people what to do and not do?