7 ms·

Very good article. I think the recommendations are reasonable as there really isn't any alternative. Good pointers on where to get started. However, if you pla

Very good article. I think the recommendations are reasonable as there really isn't any alternative. Good pointers on where to get started. However, if you play this forward, it becomes increasing difficult to reason about. There are already AI scientist who have made posts recently about burnout of just trying to keep up. I've call this effect the "Technological Acceleration Anxiety" which will only increase going forward. This technological disruption is unique compared to any prior as there is no end. There is no period of stabilization and adaption. It is continuous and accelerating. Human beings need some islands of stability to plan and reason about their lives. This is going to become increasingly difficult. I've spent a lot of time thought exploring potential societal impacts. I'm not sure how we avoid the negative ones, but I keep listening, exploring and thinking. Much of my thoughts I've collected here, in case you have any thoughts or feedback. https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

ramraj07 4y ago
My conclusion is there’s nothing, literally nothing, that can be done regulation-wise because when has regulation done anything proactively in the US since the 1970s? Even when children are killed or entire towns polluted, the _reactive_ regulation and efforts are at best face saving and short sighted. So we are pretty much left to the vagaries of free market capitalism and quirks of nature and what true AI will determine its own purpose to be, to see how the next few years and decades are going to be. I am converging on a separate topic, viz. existence of aliens in this regard. I’ve always thought that super intelligent aliens will have nothing to need from us or this planet (unless there’s some magical life force they need to extract from sentient living things), but I did conclude the one use they could have is mere observation of how we evolve for academic purposes. In that regard, this moment is indeed pivotal in history so now would be the time to check the skies and see if flying saucers are observing how we are dealing with it lol.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I’m not advocating for authoritarianism but at some stage it will become a national security issue. You cannot have people building robotic assault weapons in their garage then unleashing them on the public. This won’t be far off now we’re getting closer to solving computer vision. At some stage no one would be safe, the good bots will be in danger and so too the public.
  - sslayer 4y ago
    Pandora's box has already been opened. There is no way any government could prevent what is coming.
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      Let’s make this more constructive, why is there nothing that can’t be done ? If we really as a civilisation wanted to avoid catastrophe do you really think at this stage we couldn’t pull back ? We’re on hacker news, you need to be creative and be a hacker, but just a person who likes the Internet. If people start using ChatGPT-5 to hack critical infrastructure and take down power grids, do we just give up and die ? Or adapt ? I’m going to float a pretty controversial idea…the technology we have today is an experiment, the digital world. Humans can survive without it. Already it’s causing problems such as the spread of misinformation, addiction and social division. There is nothing to say that we can’t unwind a lot of it endangers our futures. Technology is supposed to be a tool to help us out, it’s not supposed to endanger our lives. Clearly it’s out of control and causing a lot of anxiety, we’re moving quicker than we can adapt and that’s also not good for technological progress either, so we’re on the wrong path. Edit: Have a read of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/12by8mj/i_used_autogpt_and_babyagi_today_we_are_not_ready/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/12by8mj/i_used... , if we don’t tear ourselves apart, there’s a good chance the backbone of the Internet will be torn apart long before much else happens.
      - BoorishBears 4y ago
        "If people start using ChatGPT-5 to hack critical infrastructure and take down power grids, do we just give up and die ? Or adapt ?" Why do I keep hearing stuff like this? First off, if ChatGPT-5 comes out and makes hacking critical infrastructure and taking down power grids easy, what makes you think its ability to counter that by hardening systems won't go up too? And second, what makes you think that ease is the main thing stopping people from committing terrorism? We know that you can cause widespread and long lasting damage by firing at a fragile metal boxes that take months to replace and affects the ability to power entire regions. There's something to be said about not needing to be physically there... but fear of getting caught is not really what keeps people from being terrorists. The fact is for all the unfounded pessimism the 24 hour news cycle has birthed, people just generally don't want to take down power grids, even for fun, or even if it's easy, our just out of curiosity. - There are reasonable angles if you want to argue for responsible AI, "it's going to turn people into terrorists" is not one of them.
ChatGTP 4y ago
What I find weird about AI enthusiasts is that they’re addicted to forward progress while at the same time they must understand that it’s likely going to end badly. Even for them. It’s likely going to end at least in nearly everyone being jobless or dependent on UBI and eventually running from or being destroyed by rogue terminators the more we build three capabilities into robots. Because we’re building more powerful systems we don’t understand, we could be not only endangering ourselves and other living beings, we may also be endangering the AI too. I see developing more powerful AI like developing more dangerous nuclear reactors, we don’t do that because it’s stupid, but with AI we do it because we also have this strange belief it will just lead to better reactors and no other problems. I do think people must be quickly starting to see this now as a reality and course correct. This thing is like a nuclear reactor of information. Almost like opening a portal to an alien world. I’m wondering if it will get so wild we don’t see it as a good thing to keep investing in, like at some point the dangers really aren’t just theoretical, people start getting hurt, economically and socially, and as a species we just stop the billions of dollars of funding for it. I know people will say “you can’t stop people” but I think it’s more like, the majority of sane good rational scientists who you’d actually need to profess the field might no longer be into it.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  It's the techbro variant of toxic positivity to believe this ends without significant suffering. >I’m wondering if it will get so wild we don’t see it as a good thing to keep investing in, like at some point the dangers really aren’t just theoretical, people start getting hurt, economically and socially, and as a species we just stop the billions of dollars of funding for it. I think this is more likely than that crowd things. They love gloating "adapt or die", but they overlook that any adaptation, including their own, will take place at biological speed, which they also love gloating is slower and inferior to silicon. But they're not going to be enhanced by Neuralink - they're just going to hit their limits of what they can accept, even if they hit their limits after everyone else. Of course, who knows how much there will be to salvage by that point.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago

ramraj07 4y ago

My conclusion is there’s nothing, literally nothing, that can be done regulation-wise because when has regulation done anything proactively in the US since the 1970s? Even when children are killed or entire towns polluted, the _reactive_ regulation and efforts are at best face saving and short sighted. So we are pretty much left to the vagaries of free market capitalism and quirks of nature and what true AI will determine its own purpose to be, to see how the next few years and decades are going to be. I am converging on a separate topic, viz. existence of aliens in this regard. I’ve always thought that super intelligent aliens will have nothing to need from us or this planet (unless there’s some magical life force they need to extract from sentient living things), but I did conclude the one use they could have is mere observation of how we evolve for academic purposes. In that regard, this moment is indeed pivotal in history so now would be the time to check the skies and see if flying saucers are observing how we are dealing with it lol.

ChatGTP 4y ago
I’m not advocating for authoritarianism but at some stage it will become a national security issue. You cannot have people building robotic assault weapons in their garage then unleashing them on the public. This won’t be far off now we’re getting closer to solving computer vision. At some stage no one would be safe, the good bots will be in danger and so too the public.
- sslayer 4y ago
  Pandora's box has already been opened. There is no way any government could prevent what is coming.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    Let’s make this more constructive, why is there nothing that can’t be done ? If we really as a civilisation wanted to avoid catastrophe do you really think at this stage we couldn’t pull back ? We’re on hacker news, you need to be creative and be a hacker, but just a person who likes the Internet. If people start using ChatGPT-5 to hack critical infrastructure and take down power grids, do we just give up and die ? Or adapt ? I’m going to float a pretty controversial idea…the technology we have today is an experiment, the digital world. Humans can survive without it. Already it’s causing problems such as the spread of misinformation, addiction and social division. There is nothing to say that we can’t unwind a lot of it endangers our futures. Technology is supposed to be a tool to help us out, it’s not supposed to endanger our lives. Clearly it’s out of control and causing a lot of anxiety, we’re moving quicker than we can adapt and that’s also not good for technological progress either, so we’re on the wrong path. Edit: Have a read of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/12by8mj/i_used_autogpt_and_babyagi_today_we_are_not_ready/ https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/12by8mj/i_used... , if we don’t tear ourselves apart, there’s a good chance the backbone of the Internet will be torn apart long before much else happens.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      "If people start using ChatGPT-5 to hack critical infrastructure and take down power grids, do we just give up and die ? Or adapt ?" Why do I keep hearing stuff like this? First off, if ChatGPT-5 comes out and makes hacking critical infrastructure and taking down power grids easy, what makes you think its ability to counter that by hardening systems won't go up too? And second, what makes you think that ease is the main thing stopping people from committing terrorism? We know that you can cause widespread and long lasting damage by firing at a fragile metal boxes that take months to replace and affects the ability to power entire regions. There's something to be said about not needing to be physically there... but fear of getting caught is not really what keeps people from being terrorists. The fact is for all the unfounded pessimism the 24 hour news cycle has birthed, people just generally don't want to take down power grids, even for fun, or even if it's easy, our just out of curiosity. - There are reasonable angles if you want to argue for responsible AI, "it's going to turn people into terrorists" is not one of them.

ChatGTP 4y ago

What I find weird about AI enthusiasts is that they’re addicted to forward progress while at the same time they must understand that it’s likely going to end badly. Even for them. It’s likely going to end at least in nearly everyone being jobless or dependent on UBI and eventually running from or being destroyed by rogue terminators the more we build three capabilities into robots. Because we’re building more powerful systems we don’t understand, we could be not only endangering ourselves and other living beings, we may also be endangering the AI too. I see developing more powerful AI like developing more dangerous nuclear reactors, we don’t do that because it’s stupid, but with AI we do it because we also have this strange belief it will just lead to better reactors and no other problems. I do think people must be quickly starting to see this now as a reality and course correct. This thing is like a nuclear reactor of information. Almost like opening a portal to an alien world. I’m wondering if it will get so wild we don’t see it as a good thing to keep investing in, like at some point the dangers really aren’t just theoretical, people start getting hurt, economically and socially, and as a species we just stop the billions of dollars of funding for it. I know people will say “you can’t stop people” but I think it’s more like, the majority of sane good rational scientists who you’d actually need to profess the field might no longer be into it.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
It's the techbro variant of toxic positivity to believe this ends without significant suffering. >I’m wondering if it will get so wild we don’t see it as a good thing to keep investing in, like at some point the dangers really aren’t just theoretical, people start getting hurt, economically and socially, and as a species we just stop the billions of dollars of funding for it. I think this is more likely than that crowd things. They love gloating "adapt or die", but they overlook that any adaptation, including their own, will take place at biological speed, which they also love gloating is slower and inferior to silicon. But they're not going to be enhanced by Neuralink - they're just going to hit their limits of what they can accept, even if they hit their limits after everyone else. Of course, who knows how much there will be to salvage by that point.
- ChatGTP 4y ago