5 ms·

Your idea is also voiced in Forbes magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/29/the-real-reason-elon-musk-wants-to-pause-ai-development/amp/ http

Your idea is also voiced in Forbes magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/29/the-real-reason-elon-musk-wants-to-pause-ai-development/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/03/29/the-real-r... Search "Graham's hierarchy of disagreement" which is popular on HN. Your current criticism is at the "ad hominem" level. It is entirely beside the point what Elon Musk's motivation is. The question is 1) if the risks referenced in the letter are real, which they certainly are. There has been informed thought on this for more than a decade. Recent LLMs have made the dangers even more clear. 2) is the letter's proposal of a 6 month pause useful. It's the most useful and plausible step I can think of. We need to take stock. It's not up to a handful of researchers to endanger the lives of 6B other people. 3) Is it actually plausible that we could get such a pause. We'll see. I doubt it but also search "death with dignity" by Yudkowsky. Back to Musk as an "authority", the headline is about him but more than 1000 other concerned parties have signed. I will sign. Their signature vetting process is stalled because to the volume of signatures, otherwise there would be many more.

echelon 4y ago
> Your current criticism is at the "ad hominem" level. Allow me to rephrase. I am deeply concerned that there is a possibility that some of the powerful parties backing this may be trying to catch up and using an enforced or agreed to "ceasefire" as a means to catch up in capability. I also worry that some may be able to use political strong arming to accomplish this as a means of unfair competition. > It is entirely beside the point what Elon Musk's motivation is. Is it always beside the point what anyone's motivation is? Motivation matters. > if the risks referenced in the letter are real, which they certainly are. Your opinion. > There has been informed thought on this for more than a decade. Recent LLMs have made the dangers even more clear. > 2) is the letter's proposal of a 6 month pause useful. More opinions. > It's the most useful and plausible step I can think of. We need to take stock. It's not up to a handful of researchers to endanger the lives of 6B other people. 3) Is it actually plausible that we could get such a pause. We'll see. I doubt it but also search "death with dignity" by Yudkowsky. All of this is your opinion. > Back to Musk as an "authority", the headline is about him but more than 1000 other concerned parties have signed. I didn't even mention Musk. I have several other names in mind. Lots of folks with AI companies (including LLMs!) that "may" be experiencing FOMO and sensing a strategy here. Maybe. Hypothetically. In a non-"ad hominem" way. > I will sign. Their signature vetting process is stalled because to the volume of signatures, otherwise there would be many more. People are starting counter petitions, which I'll gladly sign. The one by Suhail posted on Twitter was hilarious af. I'll also go to whatever country doesn't "pause", because this tech is literally the most exciting development of my lifetime. And I want to spend my life doing something that matters instead of gluing distributed systems together to process financial transactions.
- mikepalmer 4y ago
  Surely we can agree there is risk? (You do imply it's powerful, "this tech is literally the most exciting development of my lifetime".) Also can we agree "It's not up to a handful of researchers to endanger the lives of 6B other people."? I want to work on it too for the same reason! Can it be done safely, is worth investigating. (Yes, opinion)
  - olddustytrail 4y ago
    It doesn't matter. I recognised years ago the "Nice guys get all the AI" fallacy. If some organisations agree to stop, others won't and some of those don't care if they see the world burn. Some will welcome it.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      It's almost a certainty that countries with the means to do so will continue this research, if not in public then in secret. They'll see it as a royal road to nearly infinite riches and power. At the same time, letting another country take the lead will be seen as an unacceptable risk of ruin. I really don't see AI research halting. Slowing a little, maybe, but I'm not sure if slowing it down a little and driving it underground will help.
- medvezhenok 4y ago
  One of the other concerns (apart from safety) is the job displacement aspect - if AI displaces too many workers too fast, that could spark a worldwide conflict (some speculate that similar automation pushes laid the groundwork for WWI and WWII). So there is a benefit beyond just AGI safety.
  - biscottigelato 4y ago
    Job displacement is a silly problem compared to the AI Alignment problem. One is some human misery (but a lot of societal benefit to other groups of humans at the same time). The other one is all of us, the entire species and the future of it, gets f'cked. Its a distraction not even worth the noise.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

echelon 4y ago

> Your current criticism is at the "ad hominem" level. Allow me to rephrase. I am deeply concerned that there is a possibility that some of the powerful parties backing this may be trying to catch up and using an enforced or agreed to "ceasefire" as a means to catch up in capability. I also worry that some may be able to use political strong arming to accomplish this as a means of unfair competition. > It is entirely beside the point what Elon Musk's motivation is. Is it always beside the point what anyone's motivation is? Motivation matters. > if the risks referenced in the letter are real, which they certainly are. Your opinion. > There has been informed thought on this for more than a decade. Recent LLMs have made the dangers even more clear. > 2) is the letter's proposal of a 6 month pause useful. More opinions. > It's the most useful and plausible step I can think of. We need to take stock. It's not up to a handful of researchers to endanger the lives of 6B other people. 3) Is it actually plausible that we could get such a pause. We'll see. I doubt it but also search "death with dignity" by Yudkowsky. All of this is your opinion. > Back to Musk as an "authority", the headline is about him but more than 1000 other concerned parties have signed. I didn't even mention Musk. I have several other names in mind. Lots of folks with AI companies (including LLMs!) that "may" be experiencing FOMO and sensing a strategy here. Maybe. Hypothetically. In a non-"ad hominem" way. > I will sign. Their signature vetting process is stalled because to the volume of signatures, otherwise there would be many more. People are starting counter petitions, which I'll gladly sign. The one by Suhail posted on Twitter was hilarious af. I'll also go to whatever country doesn't "pause", because this tech is literally the most exciting development of my lifetime. And I want to spend my life doing something that matters instead of gluing distributed systems together to process financial transactions.

mikepalmer 4y ago
Surely we can agree there is risk? (You do imply it's powerful, "this tech is literally the most exciting development of my lifetime".) Also can we agree "It's not up to a handful of researchers to endanger the lives of 6B other people."? I want to work on it too for the same reason! Can it be done safely, is worth investigating. (Yes, opinion)
- olddustytrail 4y ago
  It doesn't matter. I recognised years ago the "Nice guys get all the AI" fallacy. If some organisations agree to stop, others won't and some of those don't care if they see the world burn. Some will welcome it.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    It's almost a certainty that countries with the means to do so will continue this research, if not in public then in secret. They'll see it as a royal road to nearly infinite riches and power. At the same time, letting another country take the lead will be seen as an unacceptable risk of ruin. I really don't see AI research halting. Slowing a little, maybe, but I'm not sure if slowing it down a little and driving it underground will help.
medvezhenok 4y ago
One of the other concerns (apart from safety) is the job displacement aspect - if AI displaces too many workers too fast, that could spark a worldwide conflict (some speculate that similar automation pushes laid the groundwork for WWI and WWII). So there is a benefit beyond just AGI safety.
- biscottigelato 4y ago
  Job displacement is a silly problem compared to the AI Alignment problem. One is some human misery (but a lot of societal benefit to other groups of humans at the same time). The other one is all of us, the entire species and the future of it, gets f'cked. Its a distraction not even worth the noise.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]