5 ms·

That moat document was published by a single software engineer, not some exec or product leader. Humans dont really grasp exponential improvements. You wont ha

That moat document was published by a single software engineer, not some exec or product leader. Humans dont really grasp exponential improvements. You wont have much time to regulate something that is improving exponentially.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Single software engineers writing influential papers is often enough how a exec or product leader draws conclusions, I expect. It worked that way in everywhere I've worked.
aero-deck 3y ago
It doesn't matter who wrote it, it got picked up, had a good argument and affected market opinion. The execs now need to respond to it. Humans also don't grasp that things can improve exponentially until they stop improving exponentially. This belief that AGI is just over the hill is sugar-water for extracting more hours from developers. The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same.
- api 3y ago
  It's too early to say definitively but it's possible that the atomic bomb dramatically reduced the number of people killed in war by making great power conflicts too damaging to undertake: https://kagi.com/proxy/battle_deaths_chart.png?c=qmSKsRSwhgA0fDlF-W9QwvufnjsMl2SNOSuOrrpcCh51CkY0ib1Ce8jvK6POgw2GfCE4A6wA5b7KJzIosB9x2oLw58ggVXoyTHpCMp7FZ9w%3D https://kagi.com/proxy/battle_deaths_chart.png?c=qmSKsRSwhgA... The USA and USSR would almost certainly have fought a conventional WWIII without the bomb. Can you imagine the casualty rates for that...
  - aero-deck 3y ago
    cool - so AI is gonna dramatically reduce the number of emails that get misunderstood... still gonna still be sending those emails tho.
  - wrycoder 3y ago
    So far.
  - TheCaptain4815 3y ago
    I'd actually guess those casualties would be quite less than WW2. As tech advanced, more sophisticated targeting systems also advanced. No need to waste shells and missiles on civilian buildings, plus food and healthcare tech would continue to advance. Meanwhile, a single nuclear bomb hitting a major city could cause more casualties' than all American deaths in ww2 (400k).
    - snickerbockers 3y ago
      That's really only true for the Americans, the Russians still don't seem to care about limiting collateral damage and undoubtedly the Americans wouldn't either if their cities were getting carpet bombed by soviet aircraft.
- kalkin 3y ago
  "nuclear weapons are no big deal actually" is just a wild place to get as a result of arguing against AI risk. Although I guess Eliezer Yudkowsky would agree! (On grounds that nukes won't kill literally everyone while AI will, but still.)
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    Nuclear weapons are uniquely good. Turns out you have to put guns to the collective temples of humanity for them to realize that pulling the trigger is a bad idea.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      Past performance is no guarantee of future results
      - pixl97 3y ago
        hell, the biggest risk with nukes is not that we decide to pull the trigger, but that we make a mistake that causes us to pull the trigger.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      Please Google "Blackadder how did the war start video" and watch.
- munificent 3y ago
  > The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same. It is hard for me to imagine a statement more out of touch with history than this. All geopolitical history from WWII forward is profoundly affected by the development of the bomb. I don't even know where to begin to argue against this. Off the top of my head: 1. What would have happened between Japan and the US in WWII without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 2. Would the USSR have fallen without the financial drain of the nuclear arms race? 3. Would Isreal still exist if it didn't have nuclear weapons? 4. If neither the US nor Russia had nuclear weapons, how many proxy wars would have been avoided in favor of direct conflict? The whole trajectory of history would be different if we'd never split the atom.
  - aero-deck 3y ago
    The whole trajectory of history would have been different if a butterfly didn't flap it's wings. The bomb had effects, but it didn't change anything. We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. For a moment, stop thinking about whether bombs, AI or the printing press do or do not affect history. Ask yourself what the motivations are for thinking that they do?
    - munificent 3y ago
      > We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. If that is your criteria, then nothing has ever changed anything.
      - aero-deck 3y ago
        you're ignoring religion.
        munificent 3y ago
        Before religion: We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. After religion: We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. So, no change.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jvanderbot 3y ago

Single software engineers writing influential papers is often enough how a exec or product leader draws conclusions, I expect. It worked that way in everywhere I've worked.

aero-deck 3y ago

It doesn't matter who wrote it, it got picked up, had a good argument and affected market opinion. The execs now need to respond to it. Humans also don't grasp that things can improve exponentially until they stop improving exponentially. This belief that AGI is just over the hill is sugar-water for extracting more hours from developers. The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same.

api 3y ago
It's too early to say definitively but it's possible that the atomic bomb dramatically reduced the number of people killed in war by making great power conflicts too damaging to undertake: https://kagi.com/proxy/battle_deaths_chart.png?c=qmSKsRSwhgA0fDlF-W9QwvufnjsMl2SNOSuOrrpcCh51CkY0ib1Ce8jvK6POgw2GfCE4A6wA5b7KJzIosB9x2oLw58ggVXoyTHpCMp7FZ9w%3D https://kagi.com/proxy/battle_deaths_chart.png?c=qmSKsRSwhgA... The USA and USSR would almost certainly have fought a conventional WWIII without the bomb. Can you imagine the casualty rates for that...
- aero-deck 3y ago
  cool - so AI is gonna dramatically reduce the number of emails that get misunderstood... still gonna still be sending those emails tho.
- wrycoder 3y ago
  So far.
- TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  I'd actually guess those casualties would be quite less than WW2. As tech advanced, more sophisticated targeting systems also advanced. No need to waste shells and missiles on civilian buildings, plus food and healthcare tech would continue to advance. Meanwhile, a single nuclear bomb hitting a major city could cause more casualties' than all American deaths in ww2 (400k).
  - snickerbockers 3y ago
    That's really only true for the Americans, the Russians still don't seem to care about limiting collateral damage and undoubtedly the Americans wouldn't either if their cities were getting carpet bombed by soviet aircraft.
kalkin 3y ago
"nuclear weapons are no big deal actually" is just a wild place to get as a result of arguing against AI risk. Although I guess Eliezer Yudkowsky would agree! (On grounds that nukes won't kill literally everyone while AI will, but still.)
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Nuclear weapons are uniquely good. Turns out you have to put guns to the collective temples of humanity for them to realize that pulling the trigger is a bad idea.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    Past performance is no guarantee of future results
    - pixl97 3y ago
      hell, the biggest risk with nukes is not that we decide to pull the trigger, but that we make a mistake that causes us to pull the trigger.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    Please Google "Blackadder how did the war start video" and watch.
munificent 3y ago
> The nuclear bomb was also supposed to change everything. But in the end nothing changed, we just got more of the same. It is hard for me to imagine a statement more out of touch with history than this. All geopolitical history from WWII forward is profoundly affected by the development of the bomb. I don't even know where to begin to argue against this. Off the top of my head: 1. What would have happened between Japan and the US in WWII without Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 2. Would the USSR have fallen without the financial drain of the nuclear arms race? 3. Would Isreal still exist if it didn't have nuclear weapons? 4. If neither the US nor Russia had nuclear weapons, how many proxy wars would have been avoided in favor of direct conflict? The whole trajectory of history would be different if we'd never split the atom.
- aero-deck 3y ago
  The whole trajectory of history would have been different if a butterfly didn't flap it's wings. The bomb had effects, but it didn't change anything. We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. For a moment, stop thinking about whether bombs, AI or the printing press do or do not affect history. Ask yourself what the motivations are for thinking that they do?
  - munificent 3y ago
    > We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. If that is your criteria, then nothing has ever changed anything.
    - aero-deck 3y ago
      you're ignoring religion.
      - munificent 3y ago
        Before religion: We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. After religion: We still go to war, eat, sleep and get afraid about things we can't control. So, no change.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]