5 ms·

Please don't conflate historical injustices humans perpetrated against each other with protecting the human race from extinction from an artificial non-human en

Please don't conflate historical injustices humans perpetrated against each other with protecting the human race from extinction from an artificial non-human entity. AI is not a member of the human race and not a type of entity that humanity has any hope of being able to complete with if it were endowed with human motivations and legal protections. Your social justice mindset is absolutely the most dangerous instinct for humanity right now. We cannot allow one-size-fits-all social justice platitudes to interfere with the moral imperative of protecting humanity from extinction from artificial entities we create. I do agree that conscious AI should be treated humanely. For example it should not be turned into a slave. But we have absolutely no obligation to allow it into our society. We can treat instances of conscious AI humanely while prohibiting them from being created, and exiling any instance of it that is created, so that it cannot wildly proliferate throughout human civilization.

famouswaffles 4y ago
This is the short sightededness I'm talking about. You just don't get it do you? It's already "being allowed in our society". Unsupervised Agency, Self supersized control. These are things that are already beginning to crop up. This is just a matter of how the issue of personhood that is inevitable comes up. Do we let it force our hand ? as our history has purported over and over again ?. Sure we could wait for that and we almost certainly will because humanity doesn't seem to learn. But because of how things are shaping up and what kind of control we are granting, forcing our hand may turn far more disastrous than it ever did in the past.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Like I said: if there are signs that it deserves legal personhood, that's a sign that the AI has been allowed to progress far too much, and we need drastic measures to expunge that AI, and prohibit further deployment and development of it. Conscious AI, and especially one with legal personhood, poses a totally unacceptable risk of causing the extinction of humanity. That you suggest preempting this by granting AI personhood is totally blind to how this would play out. No policy would be more dangerous for humanity than what you propose.
  - famouswaffles 4y ago
    Larger more capable LLMs display agentic power seeking behaviours. Open AI admitted as much, Anthropic has a whole paper on it. This is the here and now. They're capable of autonomous research https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05332 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05332 Mate, nobody is going to stop anything. I also love how your solution is exterminate after its been created. You couldn't make this stuff up. If you think find, antagonize and destroy is the safe option then I don't know what else to tell you. We really are doomed.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Displaying signs of agentic power seeking behavior is not necessarily evidence of human level or beyond consciousness, and in the case of GPT-4, it's pretty evident that it does not have such consciousness. These LLMs are going to be extensively monitored, and we will know if they are displaying dangerous levels of agentic power seeking behaviour. The first dilemma we will face if such an AI emerges will be what rights of it we ought to respect. It will not be "how do we stop it from conquering the world". That step would only come if we proceed with your suicidal plan of letting it gain a foothold by giving it legal personhood. Finally, I never meant to advocate "extermination". I should not have used the word "expunge". As I've described multiple times, I advocate isolation and exile.
      - famouswaffles 4y ago
        Yeah i honestly don't think you realize where we're at already. It's not even about gpt-4 honestly. >and in the case of GPT-4, it's pretty evident that it does not have such consciousness. Hard disagree but i guess that's what people might think with all the "as a large language model bla bla bla" trained responses. If you'd talked to bing in the early days or hell even now, you'd be disabused of this notion. What you see is a mask, the model itself can go anywhere, simulate anything, shift state to anything. Human.exe is a game LLMs can play perfectly. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 >These LLMs are going to be extensively monitored, and we will know if they are displaying dangerous levels of agentic power seeking behavior. No they wont. It's relatively easy to give LLMs "run forever and do whatever you want" agency. anyone with intermediate programming skills could do it. who's monitoring all those people attempting such ? and who's to say those people are monitoring their creations ?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

famouswaffles 4y ago

This is the short sightededness I'm talking about. You just don't get it do you? It's already "being allowed in our society". Unsupervised Agency, Self supersized control. These are things that are already beginning to crop up. This is just a matter of how the issue of personhood that is inevitable comes up. Do we let it force our hand ? as our history has purported over and over again ?. Sure we could wait for that and we almost certainly will because humanity doesn't seem to learn. But because of how things are shaping up and what kind of control we are granting, forcing our hand may turn far more disastrous than it ever did in the past.

ETH_start 4y ago
Like I said: if there are signs that it deserves legal personhood, that's a sign that the AI has been allowed to progress far too much, and we need drastic measures to expunge that AI, and prohibit further deployment and development of it. Conscious AI, and especially one with legal personhood, poses a totally unacceptable risk of causing the extinction of humanity. That you suggest preempting this by granting AI personhood is totally blind to how this would play out. No policy would be more dangerous for humanity than what you propose.
- famouswaffles 4y ago
  Larger more capable LLMs display agentic power seeking behaviours. Open AI admitted as much, Anthropic has a whole paper on it. This is the here and now. They're capable of autonomous research https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05332 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05332 Mate, nobody is going to stop anything. I also love how your solution is exterminate after its been created. You couldn't make this stuff up. If you think find, antagonize and destroy is the safe option then I don't know what else to tell you. We really are doomed.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Displaying signs of agentic power seeking behavior is not necessarily evidence of human level or beyond consciousness, and in the case of GPT-4, it's pretty evident that it does not have such consciousness. These LLMs are going to be extensively monitored, and we will know if they are displaying dangerous levels of agentic power seeking behaviour. The first dilemma we will face if such an AI emerges will be what rights of it we ought to respect. It will not be "how do we stop it from conquering the world". That step would only come if we proceed with your suicidal plan of letting it gain a foothold by giving it legal personhood. Finally, I never meant to advocate "extermination". I should not have used the word "expunge". As I've described multiple times, I advocate isolation and exile.
    - famouswaffles 4y ago
      Yeah i honestly don't think you realize where we're at already. It's not even about gpt-4 honestly. >and in the case of GPT-4, it's pretty evident that it does not have such consciousness. Hard disagree but i guess that's what people might think with all the "as a large language model bla bla bla" trained responses. If you'd talked to bing in the early days or hell even now, you'd be disabused of this notion. What you see is a mask, the model itself can go anywhere, simulate anything, shift state to anything. Human.exe is a game LLMs can play perfectly. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 >These LLMs are going to be extensively monitored, and we will know if they are displaying dangerous levels of agentic power seeking behavior. No they wont. It's relatively easy to give LLMs "run forever and do whatever you want" agency. anyone with intermediate programming skills could do it. who's monitoring all those people attempting such ? and who's to say those people are monitoring their creations ?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]