5 ms·

Ok. I'm dense. I can't understand what this is about. Is this a threat?

jacquesm 4y ago
I read it as a way to express the frustration about the speed with which AI tools are unleashed without proper consideration for the consequences 'just because we can'. We can't allow a well poisoning machine gap to come into existence.
- evouga 4y ago
  Seems like a flagrant strawman to characterize AI as a “well-poisoning machine.”
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Let's wait and see. I can see plenty of ways in which that could come true.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    It's not a strawman, it's an analogy. In order to be a man of straw, it would have to claim that AI "just is" a well-poisoning machine (in the literal sense of a machine that inserts poison into a hole in the ground containing H2O). Now, that alone does not mean that it goes through; the analogy works as an intuition pump, and those can be flakey (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump) But nor does it mean that a fallacy has been committed
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    Not AI as a whole. Particular activities to do with AI which would generally be deemed not only dangerous, but also not having any clear non-malicious purpose. So if there was a strawman argument here at all, it's literally the one you just made!
1attice 4y ago
This is about Sam Altman types rushing to win the ML race. We can reasonably expect civ ('the village') to be disrupted ('poisoned'), but instead of that counting as a reason to not do it, it counts --- somehow --- as a reason to do it harder, so we do it first.
dgacmu 4y ago
OpenAI is, seemingly, trying to have it both ways: on one hand, they use warnings about the dangers of AI to justify their existence and practices such as keeping models closed, etc. And on the other hand, they're rushing towards commercialization in order to beat out their rivals. It's a bit of a BS act. Either it's bad and we should slow development way down until our frameworks for dealing with it catch up, or it's not going to turn us all into paperclips. (I'm one of those boring folks who think there's a lot of risk but not in the paperclip sense but in the "when we use tools we understand poorly, we are likely to get outcomes we may not desire in terms of fairness, trustworthiness, etc.")
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

I read it as a way to express the frustration about the speed with which AI tools are unleashed without proper consideration for the consequences 'just because we can'. We can't allow a well poisoning machine gap to come into existence.

evouga 4y ago
Seems like a flagrant strawman to characterize AI as a “well-poisoning machine.”
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Let's wait and see. I can see plenty of ways in which that could come true.
- 1attice 4y ago
  It's not a strawman, it's an analogy. In order to be a man of straw, it would have to claim that AI "just is" a well-poisoning machine (in the literal sense of a machine that inserts poison into a hole in the ground containing H2O). Now, that alone does not mean that it goes through; the analogy works as an intuition pump, and those can be flakey (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_pump) But nor does it mean that a fallacy has been committed
- tpoacher 4y ago
  Not AI as a whole. Particular activities to do with AI which would generally be deemed not only dangerous, but also not having any clear non-malicious purpose. So if there was a strawman argument here at all, it's literally the one you just made!

1attice 4y ago

This is about Sam Altman types rushing to win the ML race. We can reasonably expect civ ('the village') to be disrupted ('poisoned'), but instead of that counting as a reason to not do it, it counts --- somehow --- as a reason to do it harder, so we do it first.

dgacmu 4y ago

OpenAI is, seemingly, trying to have it both ways: on one hand, they use warnings about the dangers of AI to justify their existence and practices such as keeping models closed, etc. And on the other hand, they're rushing towards commercialization in order to beat out their rivals. It's a bit of a BS act. Either it's bad and we should slow development way down until our frameworks for dealing with it catch up, or it's not going to turn us all into paperclips. (I'm one of those boring folks who think there's a lot of risk but not in the paperclip sense but in the "when we use tools we understand poorly, we are likely to get outcomes we may not desire in terms of fairness, trustworthiness, etc.")

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]