5 ms·

There are plenty of bigger "human ending" concerns on the table right now than AI and we certainly aren't pausing anything for those.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
There is no need for "whataboutism". There are plenty of very similar missives and warnings against, for example, the dangers of climate inaction, and I rarely see people claiming that the signatories of the latest IPCC report are "virtue signaling".
- biscottigelato 4y ago
  Climate change is not even close to humanity ending. At max wipe out a few coastal cities. And even that is unlikely because those that screams 'climate change' the loudest has the most assets in coastal prime real estates. Humans will still be the apex predator of the planet even if there's human caused climate change catastrophe. AI literally can end humanity, every single individual potentially. But definitely replace humans as the apex predator of the planet. It is also consistently voted the highest likelihood cause if humanity is to end in the next 100 years. https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/ranking-of-potential-causes-of-human-extinction/ https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/ranking-of-potential-caus... We should stop the climate change fear mongering. Yeah we shouldn't burn fossil as if its consequence free. But New York and Santa Monica beach should've been under water 20 years ago if the climate alarmist are correct. That's a far cry from pretending it's some number 1 priority. It shouldn't be even close. Having climate to distract us from things that will actually end us is the dumbest own goal possible for our species.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pazimzadeh 4y ago
    Based on our current trajectory the apex predator will be an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain. Probably Acenitobacter baumanii.
  - popol12 4y ago
    It’s not just about sea level or temperature increase, it’s about humanity screwing all other life forms For instance we’ve lost about 50% of insects since 1970, how is this « fear mongering » ? It’s the nº1 tragedy, by far, and it’s currently happening, unlike hypothetical AI threats https://www.businessinsider.com/insect-apocalypse-ecosystem-collapse-food-insecurity-2019-11?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/insect-apocalypse-ecosystem-...
    - revelio 4y ago
      The sorts of studies that proclaim loss of 50% of insects don't check out when looked at closely. As you might guess, counting insects is quite hard, doing so reliably over time is much harder still and then assigning causality harder yet again.
      - popol12 4y ago
        Could you please provide details/source ? I'd be very happy to learn that this 50% figure is wrong :)
        revelio 4y ago
        It's not about insects specifically but this paper points out statistical problems in a very similar claims about vertebrates: https://www.sfu.ca/biology2/rEEding/pdfs/Leung_et_al_Clustered_vs_catastrophic_Nature2020.pdf https://www.sfu.ca/biology2/rEEding/pdfs/Leung_et_al_Cluster... But it's a common theme. These claims get attention and journalists don't check, so they proliferate. Dig in to any given claim and you'll find they're all built on statistical quicksand.
lewhoo 4y ago
Like what ? Climate change ? The EU just voted for petrol and diesel car ban. Are we really single-threaded ?
- cwsx 4y ago
  We're so poorly multi-threaded, even addressing climate change has been horribly slow...
- pazimzadeh 4y ago
  - Lack of representation in government means big companies fuck up the planet if it's profitable - People are mostly incentivized to compete, not to cooperate - Antibiotic resistance - Clean water supply - etc..
  - lewhoo 4y ago
    "Lack of representation in government means big companies run the world" - is precisely what we're trying to figure out here, no ?
    - pazimzadeh 4y ago
      Sorry, who? Future of life institute?
- invig 4y ago
  In 2035. Maybe we can pause AI development in 2035?
- tensor 4y ago
  We are not, but this AI drama is also the ultimate "whataboutism." - What about if AI becomes AGI (whatever that actually means, it's not even clear)? - Well, if that DID happen soon, which we can't actually know, well, what about if it tried to kill us all? (why? who the fuck knows, maybe it will chat us to death). Meanwhile there is a very real certainty of catastrophic environmental damage that will decimate future generations, if it doesn't actually cause us to go extinct. And what do we get? People hand wringing over this ultimate what if, rather than signing every public statement document they can find to try to get an actual intervention on climate destruction. I'm not talking (oh in 10 years maybe we'll have more EVs) kind of intervention, more like, let's get every country in the world to be off oil and gas in 5 years, not just for EVs but for almost everything possible, and where not possible let's use carbon neutral biofuel.
richardw 4y ago
No, AI drives all the others in the long run. Others are speed bumps.
- bootsmann 4y ago
  Plain, old fashioned historicism. It was wrong 100 years ago, it is wrong today still.
  - richardw 4y ago
    Climate change won't affect AI, it could just make things shit for a couple hundred years. AI could solve that. Nuclear war might impact AI, but probably only temporarily (assuming we survive) and a war isn't guaranteed. But AI affects: Everything humans read/watch/touch/influence. Forever. Including climate change and our odds of nuclear war. There's no way it doesn't and once it starts there's no way we can stop it forever. Any narrower view is a failure of imagination. The outcome of AI is the outcome of humanity for the rest of our time in the universe.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

There is no need for "whataboutism". There are plenty of very similar missives and warnings against, for example, the dangers of climate inaction, and I rarely see people claiming that the signatories of the latest IPCC report are "virtue signaling".

biscottigelato 4y ago
Climate change is not even close to humanity ending. At max wipe out a few coastal cities. And even that is unlikely because those that screams 'climate change' the loudest has the most assets in coastal prime real estates. Humans will still be the apex predator of the planet even if there's human caused climate change catastrophe. AI literally can end humanity, every single individual potentially. But definitely replace humans as the apex predator of the planet. It is also consistently voted the highest likelihood cause if humanity is to end in the next 100 years. https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/ranking-of-potential-causes-of-human-extinction/ https://riskfrontiers.com/insights/ranking-of-potential-caus... We should stop the climate change fear mongering. Yeah we shouldn't burn fossil as if its consequence free. But New York and Santa Monica beach should've been under water 20 years ago if the climate alarmist are correct. That's a far cry from pretending it's some number 1 priority. It shouldn't be even close. Having climate to distract us from things that will actually end us is the dumbest own goal possible for our species.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pazimzadeh 4y ago
  Based on our current trajectory the apex predator will be an antibiotic-resistant bacterial strain. Probably Acenitobacter baumanii.
- popol12 4y ago
  It’s not just about sea level or temperature increase, it’s about humanity screwing all other life forms For instance we’ve lost about 50% of insects since 1970, how is this « fear mongering » ? It’s the nº1 tragedy, by far, and it’s currently happening, unlike hypothetical AI threats https://www.businessinsider.com/insect-apocalypse-ecosystem-collapse-food-insecurity-2019-11?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/insect-apocalypse-ecosystem-...
  - revelio 4y ago
    The sorts of studies that proclaim loss of 50% of insects don't check out when looked at closely. As you might guess, counting insects is quite hard, doing so reliably over time is much harder still and then assigning causality harder yet again.
    - popol12 4y ago
      Could you please provide details/source ? I'd be very happy to learn that this 50% figure is wrong :)
      - revelio 4y ago
        It's not about insects specifically but this paper points out statistical problems in a very similar claims about vertebrates: https://www.sfu.ca/biology2/rEEding/pdfs/Leung_et_al_Clustered_vs_catastrophic_Nature2020.pdf https://www.sfu.ca/biology2/rEEding/pdfs/Leung_et_al_Cluster... But it's a common theme. These claims get attention and journalists don't check, so they proliferate. Dig in to any given claim and you'll find they're all built on statistical quicksand.

lewhoo 4y ago

Like what ? Climate change ? The EU just voted for petrol and diesel car ban. Are we really single-threaded ?

cwsx 4y ago
We're so poorly multi-threaded, even addressing climate change has been horribly slow...
pazimzadeh 4y ago
- Lack of representation in government means big companies fuck up the planet if it's profitable - People are mostly incentivized to compete, not to cooperate - Antibiotic resistance - Clean water supply - etc..
- lewhoo 4y ago
  "Lack of representation in government means big companies run the world" - is precisely what we're trying to figure out here, no ?
  - pazimzadeh 4y ago
    Sorry, who? Future of life institute?
invig 4y ago
In 2035. Maybe we can pause AI development in 2035?
tensor 4y ago
We are not, but this AI drama is also the ultimate "whataboutism." - What about if AI becomes AGI (whatever that actually means, it's not even clear)? - Well, if that DID happen soon, which we can't actually know, well, what about if it tried to kill us all? (why? who the fuck knows, maybe it will chat us to death). Meanwhile there is a very real certainty of catastrophic environmental damage that will decimate future generations, if it doesn't actually cause us to go extinct. And what do we get? People hand wringing over this ultimate what if, rather than signing every public statement document they can find to try to get an actual intervention on climate destruction. I'm not talking (oh in 10 years maybe we'll have more EVs) kind of intervention, more like, let's get every country in the world to be off oil and gas in 5 years, not just for EVs but for almost everything possible, and where not possible let's use carbon neutral biofuel.

richardw 4y ago

No, AI drives all the others in the long run. Others are speed bumps.

bootsmann 4y ago
Plain, old fashioned historicism. It was wrong 100 years ago, it is wrong today still.
- richardw 4y ago
  Climate change won't affect AI, it could just make things shit for a couple hundred years. AI could solve that. Nuclear war might impact AI, but probably only temporarily (assuming we survive) and a war isn't guaranteed. But AI affects: Everything humans read/watch/touch/influence. Forever. Including climate change and our odds of nuclear war. There's no way it doesn't and once it starts there's no way we can stop it forever. Any narrower view is a failure of imagination. The outcome of AI is the outcome of humanity for the rest of our time in the universe.