4 ms·

Pitch-perfect. To the mis-en-scene, I could only add: the erotism that is behind technological accelerationism. What I mean is that there is a sort of viscera

Pitch-perfect. To the mis-en-scene, I could only add: the erotism that is behind technological accelerationism. What I mean is that there is a sort of visceral, cthonic attraction to the idea of creating 'new life', even as the ecosystems that support actual living systems grow frail. Just as Oppenheimer made the bomb in part because he couldn't resist the attraction of solving the intellectual problems inherent in its design, we're poisoning the well not just to do it first, but because we are hot for well-poisoning. It's such an interesting intellectual problem! Poisons are beautiful.

1attice 4y ago
After typing this, I realized that there's a great movie that captures this exactly: _Dr. Strangelove: Or I how I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_. The eponymous character's boner-like n*zi salute, irrepressible when discussing nukes, reminds me of the irrepressible boner-like response that the most brilliant minds I know have to GPT-4. Me included. The other cultural touchstone the current vibe reminds me of is Saruman telling Gandalf about the inevitability of Sauron's reign. That same glitter in the eye: "We have work to do."
- destroy-2A 4y ago
  Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!
  - 1attice 4y ago
    Could someone who is actually good at such things please deepfake me Sam Altman's face atop the dude who bullrides the falling nuke in the film's final scene?
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Ask Sam's AI to do it for you.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Now think of the current generation of AI programmers who were born after the Cold War ended, who don't understand Dr Strangelove.
nonbirithm 4y ago
This is a problem that I hope attracts much more scrutiny in the near future, and beyond the domain of what's called "AI" right now. It doesn't feel talked about much at all. It feels like we can analyze the inner workings of new technology endlessly, because shiny new tech is cool and racks our brains, but hardly ever stop to consider why we keep pressing on to make even more advances. "Because we can" isn't a satisfactory answer, especially not when the stakes are so high. Why do we keep saying that? Can we ever be totally satisfied with what we already have available to use? Does this imply there will never be a stopping point? Would we go beyond inventing AGI if such a thing were possible? I think the idea of resistance to change to preserve our chances of survival is worthy of study. I hope there will be serious anthropological studies investigating the nature of that kind of resistance and the opposite, driving insatiability of unbounded, overextended curiosity that marches forward no matter the cost - even if the chances of it affecting the final outcome are slim. It doesn't seem like there's much of an alternative besides repeating "pandora's box, cat out of the bag, genie out of the bottle" as a post-hoc justification for every set of unintended consequences for the rest of time. The fact that we have imaginations and can foresee the potential consequences of actions has helped our species for so long up to this point. But if safety regulations needing to be written in blood to be effective is really the way our species is most likely to operate, then that has terrifying implications. I think 10 years from now a television crew will sit down the original researchers and engineers behind this tech branded AI and ask: Why didn't you stop?

1attice 4y ago

After typing this, I realized that there's a great movie that captures this exactly: _Dr. Strangelove: Or I how I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_. The eponymous character's boner-like n*zi salute, irrepressible when discussing nukes, reminds me of the irrepressible boner-like response that the most brilliant minds I know have to GPT-4. Me included. The other cultural touchstone the current vibe reminds me of is Saruman telling Gandalf about the inevitability of Sauron's reign. That same glitter in the eye: "We have work to do."

destroy-2A 4y ago
Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!
- 1attice 4y ago
  Could someone who is actually good at such things please deepfake me Sam Altman's face atop the dude who bullrides the falling nuke in the film's final scene?
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Ask Sam's AI to do it for you.
hgsgm 4y ago
Now think of the current generation of AI programmers who were born after the Cold War ended, who don't understand Dr Strangelove.

nonbirithm 4y ago

This is a problem that I hope attracts much more scrutiny in the near future, and beyond the domain of what's called "AI" right now. It doesn't feel talked about much at all. It feels like we can analyze the inner workings of new technology endlessly, because shiny new tech is cool and racks our brains, but hardly ever stop to consider why we keep pressing on to make even more advances. "Because we can" isn't a satisfactory answer, especially not when the stakes are so high. Why do we keep saying that? Can we ever be totally satisfied with what we already have available to use? Does this imply there will never be a stopping point? Would we go beyond inventing AGI if such a thing were possible? I think the idea of resistance to change to preserve our chances of survival is worthy of study. I hope there will be serious anthropological studies investigating the nature of that kind of resistance and the opposite, driving insatiability of unbounded, overextended curiosity that marches forward no matter the cost - even if the chances of it affecting the final outcome are slim. It doesn't seem like there's much of an alternative besides repeating "pandora's box, cat out of the bag, genie out of the bottle" as a post-hoc justification for every set of unintended consequences for the rest of time. The fact that we have imaginations and can foresee the potential consequences of actions has helped our species for so long up to this point. But if safety regulations needing to be written in blood to be effective is really the way our species is most likely to operate, then that has terrifying implications. I think 10 years from now a television crew will sit down the original researchers and engineers behind this tech branded AI and ask: Why didn't you stop?