5 ms·

The concerns of AI pessimists are simply not real. They are thought experiments and hypotheticals about a technology that does not exist and is vaguely defined.

The concerns of AI pessimists are simply not real. They are thought experiments and hypotheticals about a technology that does not exist and is vaguely defined. There are concerns about every form of technology. Nuclear energy. Plastics. Online advertising. Vaccines. But we generally don't take those things seriously until there is proven harm. This could mean waiting until it's too late and a catastrophe has already happened. But that's the risk we take with thousands of things every day. If YOU take the issue seriously, I'll listen. but there's only so much to be gained from debating the threat posed by something that is not yet part of reality.

llamaimperative 4y ago
Nuclear energy and vaccines are extremely tightly controlled, tested before mass deployment, and we have mechanistic knowledge of how they work. The fact that we cannot exactly wrap our head around what this technology is and what it'll ultimately be capable of is reason for more concern, not less. A 600 Elo player doesn't beat a 1400 Elo player just because the 600 can't imagine the precise way in which he'll lose. The weaker player's inability to imagine this is exactly why he loses. That's the whole point of intelligence: seeing paths to goals that less intelligent entities cannot see.
concordDance 4y ago
Making something much smarter than you is one of the few ways to actually get killed off without a second chance. None of the other things on your list can kill everyone. Do we know we'll be making something much smarter than us? Not right now, no. But if we were going to the risks would be high.
opportune 4y ago
Completely agree, if you have an actual concern, specify it. Do you think deepfakes will cause a credibility crisis? Do you think LLMs will ruin anonymous internet discussions? These are tangible and realistic problems, but both technologies have existed for years and people have been talking about these problems for a while as long as they’ve existed, so it’s annoying for people to come out of nowhere and assume that nobody cares or start a panic saying we need to axe them because you just learned about them and got scared. It’s unproductive and pointless to argue about hypotheticals that don’t map to anything close to current technology.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Is your contention that the risks you mention are completely uncorrelated to the availability and quality of these tools, or that the availability and quality haven't increased in recent months?
  - opportune 4y ago
    What I’m contending is that there are real present/upcoming risks which we should directly address, rather than hypothetical risks that aren’t well defined. I personally believe that the present risks are addressable with existing technology and that we can handle it as a society.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      When controlling a forest fire you don’t really just dump water on where the fire is currently burning. You do controlled burns and clear cutting and various prep work in the path of the fire. It seems extremely clear and well-defined that the specific, present risks you mention will be amplified by the obvious progress and increased availability of the tools. That’s not really super vague at this point and we can definitely be addressing it.

llamaimperative 4y ago

Nuclear energy and vaccines are extremely tightly controlled, tested before mass deployment, and we have mechanistic knowledge of how they work. The fact that we cannot exactly wrap our head around what this technology is and what it'll ultimately be capable of is reason for more concern, not less. A 600 Elo player doesn't beat a 1400 Elo player just because the 600 can't imagine the precise way in which he'll lose. The weaker player's inability to imagine this is exactly why he loses. That's the whole point of intelligence: seeing paths to goals that less intelligent entities cannot see.

concordDance 4y ago

Making something much smarter than you is one of the few ways to actually get killed off without a second chance. None of the other things on your list can kill everyone. Do we know we'll be making something much smarter than us? Not right now, no. But if we were going to the risks would be high.

opportune 4y ago

Completely agree, if you have an actual concern, specify it. Do you think deepfakes will cause a credibility crisis? Do you think LLMs will ruin anonymous internet discussions? These are tangible and realistic problems, but both technologies have existed for years and people have been talking about these problems for a while as long as they’ve existed, so it’s annoying for people to come out of nowhere and assume that nobody cares or start a panic saying we need to axe them because you just learned about them and got scared. It’s unproductive and pointless to argue about hypotheticals that don’t map to anything close to current technology.

ethanbond 4y ago
Is your contention that the risks you mention are completely uncorrelated to the availability and quality of these tools, or that the availability and quality haven't increased in recent months?
- opportune 4y ago
  What I’m contending is that there are real present/upcoming risks which we should directly address, rather than hypothetical risks that aren’t well defined. I personally believe that the present risks are addressable with existing technology and that we can handle it as a society.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    When controlling a forest fire you don’t really just dump water on where the fire is currently burning. You do controlled burns and clear cutting and various prep work in the path of the fire. It seems extremely clear and well-defined that the specific, present risks you mention will be amplified by the obvious progress and increased availability of the tools. That’s not really super vague at this point and we can definitely be addressing it.