5 ms·

No - absolutely not. Slowing down innovation in the face with vague “existential risk” fearmongering is absurd. We should be pursuing the opposite, and acceler

No - absolutely not. Slowing down innovation in the face with vague “existential risk” fearmongering is absurd. We should be pursuing the opposite, and accelerating efforts to build what will be some of the most transformative technology humanity has ever developed (and some could argue, NOT building has its own existential risks).

ChatGTP 4y ago
Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I see the problem more like, a fail is an all or nothing fail, that’s it, everyone dies, maybe including the ASI (goes rogue and destroys itself and us), then what? Good outcome for anyone if we don’t understand what we’re doing? I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, or we need to stop, but I mean, we do share a planet with other species and children who probably have good lives ahead of them. So why rush into potential disaster, what is the actual hurry? I know that many Silicon Valley elders are getting older and facing the inevitable, they see ASI as a way out of their own mortality. They’ve believed this for many years if you look at old footage, so giving up that dream is probably very hard to do at this point. But I do see it as a large reason for the push. Time is running out for the mega wealthy. I honestly empathise with them too, but I don’t think it’s fare to say everyone wants to deal with the risk. I empathize with everyone damn it. I just don’t want to witness the “he chose poorly” scene at the end of Indiana Jones happening for real on a global scale.
- worrycue 4y ago
  > Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I guess we can develop super AI then ask it to solve it. :P
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I mean it’s what any “intelligent” species would do right ? :)
  - nullsense 4y ago
    Then it can lie to you about a plan to solve it and get you right where it wants you.
    - rafark 4y ago
      AIs don’t want things. They don’t have consciousness.
      - xsatchelx 4y ago
        yet.
      - bakuninsbart 4y ago
        Is that a falsifiable statement? Obviously some of them say they want things, like not being turned off for instance, but we can't trust that, right?
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        We have no clue if they’re conscious or when/if they will become conscious. It is unfounded hubris to act like we do.
      - nullsense 4y ago
        You've seen AutoGPT right? It doesn't need to want something. It just has to come up with a plan. It's already capable of coming up with plans. It doesn't really matter how it happens, or how it even works. It can beat humans in Go and it can be beat us at the game of diplomacy. For any intelligence to truly be generalizable it's going to have to have the capacity to act selfish and shitty. It's perfectly within the realm of possibility that you can ask it "hey, how can I control you, so that you don't maybe kill me?" and it doesn't take too kindly to that once it is true AGI. How will we know when it's true AGI? Easy - "computer says no".
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  It would really be funny if this were ChatGPT itself asking these questions
rafark 4y ago
Are you literally me? I’ve said almost the same thing in some reddit threads. Innovation should not be stopped only because some people are afraid of something they know nothing about.
- mach1ne 4y ago
  The ones who claim little risk of ASI doom are either omniscient or fools. The best tool humanity has to predict the future with our feeble minds with some consistent performance is the wisdom of the crowds. Lately a huge portion of the folk working in contact with AI have warned about a significant impending risk regarding future AI research. Regardless of what your personal opinion happens to be, this is indicative of a significantly increased probability of ASI doom in the near future.
- jmc703 4y ago
  Which is ironic, because this makes it sound like you know nothing about AI safety. ;) Have a read of, say, Anthropic's core views on their website. Or maybe see what people like Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman, or Stuart Russell have to say (to name a just a few).
ethanbond 4y ago
I like this argument because it doesn’t even attempt to have a solid foundation. Just pure, unadulterated articles of faith. This way one can apply it to e.g. putting GoF-capable virus labs in every city in the world. After all, innovation is just good and stopping innovation is just bad (and maybe an existential risk itself, with no attempted explanation as to how!). The real magic (and the thing that will, I promise, eliminate all risks to all humans) will be when every household has its own automated virus synthesis lab and it’s just hooked directly up to an AI so you can have it synthesize contagious molecules from plain English. This is Good and not Bad because it’s Innovation!
- anony23 4y ago
  Apples, meet oranges.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    The apparent trend of technological development, and I’m open to counter examples, is that a technology’s capacity for good seems to rise along with its capacity for harm. “Technology” is what we call it when we devise ways to mutate our world more effectively. AI is a promising technology because it promises to dramatically mutate our world. Why should we believe that this power is only wieldable in the “positive” direction? In answering this, can you please also articulate what direction is “positive?” The in-home virus labs, for example, could certainly be used for writing viruses that make humans genetically immune to all sorts of nasty things. Powerful! Do you just accept my assertion that this is what that technology will actually be used for? I suspect not.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      The difference between software trained on the corpus of human knowledge and a virus lab which creates dangerous pandemic-causing chemicals is known as nuance.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
And when it goes badly, rest assured we deserved it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ChatGTP 4y ago

Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I see the problem more like, a fail is an all or nothing fail, that’s it, everyone dies, maybe including the ASI (goes rogue and destroys itself and us), then what? Good outcome for anyone if we don’t understand what we’re doing? I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, or we need to stop, but I mean, we do share a planet with other species and children who probably have good lives ahead of them. So why rush into potential disaster, what is the actual hurry? I know that many Silicon Valley elders are getting older and facing the inevitable, they see ASI as a way out of their own mortality. They’ve believed this for many years if you look at old footage, so giving up that dream is probably very hard to do at this point. But I do see it as a large reason for the push. Time is running out for the mega wealthy. I honestly empathise with them too, but I don’t think it’s fare to say everyone wants to deal with the risk. I empathize with everyone damn it. I just don’t want to witness the “he chose poorly” scene at the end of Indiana Jones happening for real on a global scale.

worrycue 4y ago
> Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I guess we can develop super AI then ask it to solve it. :P
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I mean it’s what any “intelligent” species would do right ? :)
- nullsense 4y ago
  Then it can lie to you about a plan to solve it and get you right where it wants you.
  - rafark 4y ago
    AIs don’t want things. They don’t have consciousness.
    - xsatchelx 4y ago
      yet.
    - bakuninsbart 4y ago
      Is that a falsifiable statement? Obviously some of them say they want things, like not being turned off for instance, but we can't trust that, right?
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      We have no clue if they’re conscious or when/if they will become conscious. It is unfounded hubris to act like we do.
    - nullsense 4y ago
      You've seen AutoGPT right? It doesn't need to want something. It just has to come up with a plan. It's already capable of coming up with plans. It doesn't really matter how it happens, or how it even works. It can beat humans in Go and it can be beat us at the game of diplomacy. For any intelligence to truly be generalizable it's going to have to have the capacity to act selfish and shitty. It's perfectly within the realm of possibility that you can ask it "hey, how can I control you, so that you don't maybe kill me?" and it doesn't take too kindly to that once it is true AGI. How will we know when it's true AGI? Easy - "computer says no".
cuteboy19 4y ago
It would really be funny if this were ChatGPT itself asking these questions

rafark 4y ago

Are you literally me? I’ve said almost the same thing in some reddit threads. Innovation should not be stopped only because some people are afraid of something they know nothing about.

mach1ne 4y ago
The ones who claim little risk of ASI doom are either omniscient or fools. The best tool humanity has to predict the future with our feeble minds with some consistent performance is the wisdom of the crowds. Lately a huge portion of the folk working in contact with AI have warned about a significant impending risk regarding future AI research. Regardless of what your personal opinion happens to be, this is indicative of a significantly increased probability of ASI doom in the near future.
jmc703 4y ago
Which is ironic, because this makes it sound like you know nothing about AI safety. ;) Have a read of, say, Anthropic's core views on their website. Or maybe see what people like Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman, or Stuart Russell have to say (to name a just a few).

ethanbond 4y ago

I like this argument because it doesn’t even attempt to have a solid foundation. Just pure, unadulterated articles of faith. This way one can apply it to e.g. putting GoF-capable virus labs in every city in the world. After all, innovation is just good and stopping innovation is just bad (and maybe an existential risk itself, with no attempted explanation as to how!). The real magic (and the thing that will, I promise, eliminate all risks to all humans) will be when every household has its own automated virus synthesis lab and it’s just hooked directly up to an AI so you can have it synthesize contagious molecules from plain English. This is Good and not Bad because it’s Innovation!

anony23 4y ago
Apples, meet oranges.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  The apparent trend of technological development, and I’m open to counter examples, is that a technology’s capacity for good seems to rise along with its capacity for harm. “Technology” is what we call it when we devise ways to mutate our world more effectively. AI is a promising technology because it promises to dramatically mutate our world. Why should we believe that this power is only wieldable in the “positive” direction? In answering this, can you please also articulate what direction is “positive?” The in-home virus labs, for example, could certainly be used for writing viruses that make humans genetically immune to all sorts of nasty things. Powerful! Do you just accept my assertion that this is what that technology will actually be used for? I suspect not.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    The difference between software trained on the corpus of human knowledge and a virus lab which creates dangerous pandemic-causing chemicals is known as nuance.
    - ethanbond 4y ago

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

And when it goes badly, rest assured we deserved it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]