4 ms·

The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. >e.g. ma

The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. >e.g. mandating public registration of large models, safety standards enforced by third-party audits, restrictions on allowed uses, etc - would plausibly be helpful for both. No, that's bullshit as well. That's what these companies want, and why they're hyping up the angle of how powerful their crap is. That's regulatory capture. >There's no law of nature that says if something has appeared in a science fiction story, it can't appear in reality. I'm saying that their fears are painted by the fiction, instead of reality. No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work. Instead it's just "The lights come on and AI does machiavellian shit and copies itself to all of the smartphones on earth. QED."

concordDance 3y ago
> The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. I don't think it really matters who was responsible if the X-risk fears come to pass, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up. > No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work. To use the famous argument: I don't know what moves Magnus Carlson will make when he plays against me, but I can nonetheless predict the eventual outcome.
kalkin 3y ago
You're doing pretty much exactly the dance here: https://twitter.com/natosaichek/status/1657422437951369218 https://twitter.com/natosaichek/status/1657422437951369218 Note that this is agreeing with a Gary Marcus Tweet - Gary Marcus not exactly being an AI hypester. But of course there are some people for whom playing the role of real-no-bs-computer-knower is so attractive that no number of people like him, Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell etc publicly worrying about x-risk will impact their tone of dismissive certitude. Are you one of those people?
- srslack 3y ago
  All of those people have financial incentives to hype it. How curious that there's this great and very probable X-risk, yet they aren't going to stop their contributing to a potential X-risk. Dismissive of what? Science fiction stories? If there's anything to focus on, maybe focus on potential job displacement (not elimination) from cheap language tasks and generative capabilities in general. I'm betting on this: the Overton window of Artificial Intelligence will shift in the next five years where the current cream-of-the-crop has been delegated to machine learning yet again, it's just accepted. It augments humans where it makes sense, the hype wave has subsided and everyone has stopped hammering it into their products where it doesn't, and we're no closer to the undefinable "AGI", let alone something that produces X-risk, global scale.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > All of those people have financial incentives to hype it. How curious that there's this great and very probable X-risk, yet they aren't going to stop their contributing to a potential X-risk. All those people are rehashing what Yudkowsky and his disciples, and his predecessors, were shouting from the rooftops for the past 15 years, but few listened to them. Few still do, most just keep mocking them and wondering why are they still around. That some of those people now repeating after Eliezer, et al. have a financial interest in pushing us closer to X-risk, and kind of don't want to stop, is an interesting thing on its own - but it doesn't invalidate the message, as the message is older than their presence on the scene.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    > I'm betting on this: the Overton window of Artificial Intelligence will shift in the next five years where the current cream-of-the-crop has been delegated to machine learning yet again, it's just accepted. It augments humans where it makes sense, the hype wave has subsided and everyone has stopped hammering it into their products where it doesn't, and we're no closer to the undefinable "AGI", let alone something that produces X-risk, global scale. I agree with this but ALSO think there's a small chance I'm wrong and a well designed prompt and action loop would let a future GPT7 LLM use the range of human thinking techniques in its corpus to bootstrap itself. And there's also other non-LLM AI that might be a problem in the future and we should plan as to how we can design institutions and incentive structures so that whenever this future AGI comes about it preserves human value.

concordDance 3y ago

> The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. I don't think it really matters who was responsible if the X-risk fears come to pass, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up. > No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work. To use the famous argument: I don't know what moves Magnus Carlson will make when he plays against me, but I can nonetheless predict the eventual outcome.

kalkin 3y ago

You're doing pretty much exactly the dance here: https://twitter.com/natosaichek/status/1657422437951369218 https://twitter.com/natosaichek/status/1657422437951369218 Note that this is agreeing with a Gary Marcus Tweet - Gary Marcus not exactly being an AI hypester. But of course there are some people for whom playing the role of real-no-bs-computer-knower is so attractive that no number of people like him, Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell etc publicly worrying about x-risk will impact their tone of dismissive certitude. Are you one of those people?

srslack 3y ago
All of those people have financial incentives to hype it. How curious that there's this great and very probable X-risk, yet they aren't going to stop their contributing to a potential X-risk. Dismissive of what? Science fiction stories? If there's anything to focus on, maybe focus on potential job displacement (not elimination) from cheap language tasks and generative capabilities in general. I'm betting on this: the Overton window of Artificial Intelligence will shift in the next five years where the current cream-of-the-crop has been delegated to machine learning yet again, it's just accepted. It augments humans where it makes sense, the hype wave has subsided and everyone has stopped hammering it into their products where it doesn't, and we're no closer to the undefinable "AGI", let alone something that produces X-risk, global scale.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > All of those people have financial incentives to hype it. How curious that there's this great and very probable X-risk, yet they aren't going to stop their contributing to a potential X-risk. All those people are rehashing what Yudkowsky and his disciples, and his predecessors, were shouting from the rooftops for the past 15 years, but few listened to them. Few still do, most just keep mocking them and wondering why are they still around. That some of those people now repeating after Eliezer, et al. have a financial interest in pushing us closer to X-risk, and kind of don't want to stop, is an interesting thing on its own - but it doesn't invalidate the message, as the message is older than their presence on the scene.
- concordDance 3y ago
  > I'm betting on this: the Overton window of Artificial Intelligence will shift in the next five years where the current cream-of-the-crop has been delegated to machine learning yet again, it's just accepted. It augments humans where it makes sense, the hype wave has subsided and everyone has stopped hammering it into their products where it doesn't, and we're no closer to the undefinable "AGI", let alone something that produces X-risk, global scale. I agree with this but ALSO think there's a small chance I'm wrong and a well designed prompt and action loop would let a future GPT7 LLM use the range of human thinking techniques in its corpus to bootstrap itself. And there's also other non-LLM AI that might be a problem in the future and we should plan as to how we can design institutions and incentive structures so that whenever this future AGI comes about it preserves human value.