5 ms·

Human were already on the path to doing this without any help by AI. We already have the potentially world ending threats of both nuclear war and climate chang

Human were already on the path to doing this without any help by AI. We already have the potentially world ending threats of both nuclear war and climate change, I am yet to be convinced that AI is actually more dangerous than either of those.

rurp 4y ago
There's no hard limit on existential threats, we can keep adding more until one blows up and destroys us. Even if AI is less dangerous than nuclear destruction, that's not too comforting.
- celdon25 4y ago
  > Even if AI is less dangerous than nuclear destruction It's not. At least with the nukes there's a chance of resetting civilization.
richardw 4y ago
We currently hold all the agency. We have the potential to fix those. They’re not binary. We can slow/reverse climate impact and you can have a small nuclear war. Creating AI is a one-way function and once it exists, climate change or nuclear war or biological impact or survival become an outcome of what the AI does. We hand it our agency, for good or ill.
- startupsfail 4y ago
  We’ve already screwed up. Hockey stick climate change and extinction is now in progress. This can change, with the fast advent of Fusion (net positive shown at the end of 2022) and AI (first glimpses of AGI in the begging of 2022). And yes, we definitely should not allow a madman with a supercomputer (like Musk or Putin or …) to outcompete more reasonable players.
  - politician 4y ago
    Would you mind elaborating on why Musk is in the same class as Putin for me? I’m not seeing it.
    - startupsfail 4y ago
      Authoritarian, mendacious and unpredictable. Controls a lot of resources (i.e. space launchers, satellites with unknown capabilities, robotic vehicles, supercomputers, propaganda machines). Considers himself above the government.
      - politician 4y ago
        When was the last time Musk abducted 15,000+ children and force migrated them? Used the resources of a nation to invade a neighboring country with the aim of conquest? Come on, just admit that you were wrong to put them on the same level of your pyramid of people you hate.
        startupsfail 4y ago
        Hey, I don’t dislike Musk. He is one of the people who is actually making a difference. Nearly all the others are building yachts and procrastinating. But that doesn’t mean that I’d like him to be the absolute ruler with a superior AI tech. He thinks too much of himself and he’ll make mistakes.
        randmeerkat 4y ago
        Fortunately Sam Altman, not Musk is running point at OpenAI. imho Sam is the perfect person for the job. If anyone can manage the risks of something like AGI while also optimizing for the benefits, it’s Sam.
        staunton 4y ago
        However, Musk thinks (or at least claims to think) that AI alignment is an urgent problem while Altman does not.
- atmartins 4y ago
  Wait, what? Why is AI unlimited? There are many constraints like the speed of information, calculation, available memory, etc. Where does it cross into the physical world? And at what scale? Is it going to mine iron unnoticed or something? How will it get raw materials to build an army? Firewalls and air gapped systems are all suddenly worthless because AI has some instant and unbounded intelligence? The militaries of the world watch while eating hot dogs? A lot of things CAN happen but I'm confused when people state things as if they WILL. If you're that much of an oracle tell me which stonk to buy so I can go on holiday.
  - shaunxcode 4y ago
    What I could see happening is a cult forming around an AGI and doing their bidding.
- 8note 4y ago
  Do we? If consider the systems our forebears created to hold the agency. The incentives of capitalism and government determine if or how climate change will be solved, and I have approximately zero agency in that
umeshunni 4y ago
To call climate change 'world ending' is rather disingenuous given that the world has been significantly hotter and colder than what it is now just in the last 100k years.
- wiredearp 4y ago
  It was never this hot within millions of years and differentiating between a world ending event and one that destroys economies and societies and eventually most life on the planet is disingenuous in itself
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rurp 4y ago
  FYI, when folks use terms like "world ending" there is nearly always an implied for sentient life that we care about.

rurp 4y ago

There's no hard limit on existential threats, we can keep adding more until one blows up and destroys us. Even if AI is less dangerous than nuclear destruction, that's not too comforting.

celdon25 4y ago
> Even if AI is less dangerous than nuclear destruction It's not. At least with the nukes there's a chance of resetting civilization.

richardw 4y ago

We currently hold all the agency. We have the potential to fix those. They’re not binary. We can slow/reverse climate impact and you can have a small nuclear war. Creating AI is a one-way function and once it exists, climate change or nuclear war or biological impact or survival become an outcome of what the AI does. We hand it our agency, for good or ill.

startupsfail 4y ago
We’ve already screwed up. Hockey stick climate change and extinction is now in progress. This can change, with the fast advent of Fusion (net positive shown at the end of 2022) and AI (first glimpses of AGI in the begging of 2022). And yes, we definitely should not allow a madman with a supercomputer (like Musk or Putin or …) to outcompete more reasonable players.
- politician 4y ago
  Would you mind elaborating on why Musk is in the same class as Putin for me? I’m not seeing it.
  - startupsfail 4y ago
    Authoritarian, mendacious and unpredictable. Controls a lot of resources (i.e. space launchers, satellites with unknown capabilities, robotic vehicles, supercomputers, propaganda machines). Considers himself above the government.
    - politician 4y ago
      When was the last time Musk abducted 15,000+ children and force migrated them? Used the resources of a nation to invade a neighboring country with the aim of conquest? Come on, just admit that you were wrong to put them on the same level of your pyramid of people you hate.
      - startupsfail 4y ago
        Hey, I don’t dislike Musk. He is one of the people who is actually making a difference. Nearly all the others are building yachts and procrastinating. But that doesn’t mean that I’d like him to be the absolute ruler with a superior AI tech. He thinks too much of himself and he’ll make mistakes.
        randmeerkat 4y ago
        Fortunately Sam Altman, not Musk is running point at OpenAI. imho Sam is the perfect person for the job. If anyone can manage the risks of something like AGI while also optimizing for the benefits, it’s Sam.
        staunton 4y ago
        However, Musk thinks (or at least claims to think) that AI alignment is an urgent problem while Altman does not.
atmartins 4y ago
Wait, what? Why is AI unlimited? There are many constraints like the speed of information, calculation, available memory, etc. Where does it cross into the physical world? And at what scale? Is it going to mine iron unnoticed or something? How will it get raw materials to build an army? Firewalls and air gapped systems are all suddenly worthless because AI has some instant and unbounded intelligence? The militaries of the world watch while eating hot dogs? A lot of things CAN happen but I'm confused when people state things as if they WILL. If you're that much of an oracle tell me which stonk to buy so I can go on holiday.
- shaunxcode 4y ago
  What I could see happening is a cult forming around an AGI and doing their bidding.
8note 4y ago
Do we? If consider the systems our forebears created to hold the agency. The incentives of capitalism and government determine if or how climate change will be solved, and I have approximately zero agency in that

umeshunni 4y ago

To call climate change 'world ending' is rather disingenuous given that the world has been significantly hotter and colder than what it is now just in the last 100k years.

wiredearp 4y ago
It was never this hot within millions of years and differentiating between a world ending event and one that destroys economies and societies and eventually most life on the planet is disingenuous in itself
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rurp 4y ago
FYI, when folks use terms like "world ending" there is nearly always an implied for sentient life that we care about.