4 ms·

If only we would fight for the real issues like climate change, instead of fantasies that would be great.

max_ 3y ago
Things like extreme poverty already kill many people today. The risk of individuals suddenly falling into extreme poverty is a very real one. But none wants to talk about how to mitigate that problem.
- oytis 3y ago
  Is AI going to replace the lowest paid jobs though? I imagine, it rather has potential to move the white collar workers down the social ladder, which is unfortunate, but wouldn't cause extreme poverty.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Are the 4 million truck/taxi drivers in the US white collar? Janitors? Fast food workers? Automation is relentless and not everyone can be a plumber. Zoom out. It's a big problem that most people derive their social power from labor while the demand for labor is clearly on a long term downward trend. Even if progress slows way down, even if the next wave of progress only dispossesses people who you hate and feel comfortable farming for schadenfreude, we will have to deal with this eventually. Defaulting means our society will look like (insert cyberpunk nightmare world here).
    - oytis 3y ago
      I am not hating anyone, being a white collar worker myself. My point is that a whole lot of people already live like that, without having much power from their labour, and the sky is not falling. More people might be joining them, and the illusion of meritocracy might be harder to maintain in the future, but extreme poverty, hunger etc. is something we will likely be able to avoid
- holmesworcester 3y ago
  Most moral and legal systems hold genocide in a special place, and this is natural, because systematically killing all members of a religious or ethnic group is more damaging than killing some members. Eliminating a disease like smallpox is a much more significant achievement than simply mitigating it or treating it. When we really eliminate a disease it may never come back! This list of experts is worried about us building something that will do to us what we did to smallpox. For the same reasons as above, that is more worrying than extreme poverty and the comparison you are making is a false equivalence. Another way to look at it is, you can't fight to end poverty when you no longer exist. We can argue about whether the risk is real, but if this set of experts thinks it is, and you disagree for some reason, I would spend some time thinking deeply about whether that reason is simply based in a failure of imagination on your part, and whether you are sure enough to bet your life and everyone else's on that reason. Everyone can think of a security system strong enough that they themselves can't imagine a way to break it. Similarly, anyone can think of a reason why superhuman AGI is impossible or why it can't really hurt us.
  - max_ 3y ago
    Yes, I agree with you. Poverty many not be an existential risk. But something like Nuclear War might be.
- ericb 3y ago
  If there's no humanity, presumably those people would be worse off, no?
HereBePandas 3y ago
> If only we would fight for the real issues like... I've heard these arguments many times and they never make sense to me. Most of the people I know working on AI do so precisely because they want to solve the "real issues" like climate change and believe that radically accelerating scientific innovation via AI is the key to doing so. And some fraction of those people also worry that if AI -> AGI (accidentally or intentionally), then you could have major negative side effects (including extinction-level events).
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
It doesn't feel nice when the real issues that you care about are passively dismissed as fantasies, with no supporting argument, does it?
DoneWithAllThat 3y ago
The response to climate change in recent years, even the most recent decade, is massive and global. This dumb trope that we’re not doing anything about is rooted in no amount of progress here will be accepted as sufficient. It’s a religion at this point.
autonomousErwin 3y ago
Isn't this how people started raising awareness for climate change - the scientists, engineers, and researchers are the most vocal to start with (and then inevitably politics and tribalism consume it) Why not believe them now, assuming you believed them when they were calling out for action on climate change decades ago?
kypro 3y ago
What's the point in dismissing the need for AI safety? Are you guys Russian bots, or do you genuinely see no reason to worry about AI safety? But since I see these kinds of snarky responses often – we obviously do worry about climate change and various other issues. Continued advancements in AI is just one of many issues that face us which humanity should be concerned about. Few concerned about AI would argue it comes at the expense of other issues, but in addition to them. If you're saying it's a matter of priorities and that currently humanity is dedicating too much of its collective resource to AI safety I think you're probably over estimating current amount of funding and research going into AI safety. If you're saying that AI safety is a non-issue then you're probably not well informed on the topic.
- arp242 3y ago
  This page talks about "extinction from AI". I'm sorry, but I think that's a complete non-issue for the foreseeable future. I just don't see how that will happen beyond spectacular science fiction scenarios that are just not going to happen. If that makes me a Russian bot then, well, хорошо! The risks from AI will be banal and boring. Spam, blogspam, fake articles, fake pictures, what-have-you. Those things are an issue, but not "extinction" issues.
  - kypro 3y ago
    Apologies, the Russian bot comment was more me venting frustration at the prevalence of low-effort response like yours (sorry) to those who try to raise concerns about AI safety. I do agree with you that extinction from AI isn't likely to be an issue this decade. However, I would note that it's difficult to predict what the rate of change is likely to be once you have scalable general intelligence. I can't speak for people who signed this, but for me the trends and risks of AI are just as clear as those of climate change. I don't worry that climate change is going to be a major issue this decade (and perhaps not even next), but it's obvious where the trend is going when you project out. Similarly the "real" risks of AI may not be this decade, but they are coming. And again, I'd stress it's extremely hard to project when that will be since when you have a scalable general intelligence progress is likely to accelerate exponentially. So that said, where do we disagree here? Are you saying with a high level of certainty that extinction risks from AI are too far in the future to worry about? If so, when do you think extinction risks from AI are likely to be a concern – a couple of decades, more? Do you hold similar views about the present extinction risk of climate change – and if so, why not? Could I also ask if you believe any resources in the present should be dedicated to the existential risks future AI capabilities could pose to humanity? And if not, when would you like to see resources put into those risks? Is there some level of capability that you're waiting to see before you begin to be concerned?
mlinsey 3y ago
Not sure what you mean, the movement to combat climate change is orders of magnitude bigger than the movement to combat AI risk - in terms of organizations dedicated to it, dollars donated, legislation passed, international treaties signed, investment in technologies to mitigate the risk. Of course, the difference is that the technologies causing climate change are more deeply embedded throughout the economy, and so political resistance to anti-climate change measures is very strong as well. This is one reason in favor of addressing risk earlier, before we make our civilization as dependent on large neural nets as it currently is on fossil fuels. A climate change movement in the mid-1800s when the internal combustion engine was just taking off would also have been seen as quixotic and engaging in sci-fi fantasies though.

max_ 3y ago

Things like extreme poverty already kill many people today. The risk of individuals suddenly falling into extreme poverty is a very real one. But none wants to talk about how to mitigate that problem.

oytis 3y ago
Is AI going to replace the lowest paid jobs though? I imagine, it rather has potential to move the white collar workers down the social ladder, which is unfortunate, but wouldn't cause extreme poverty.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Are the 4 million truck/taxi drivers in the US white collar? Janitors? Fast food workers? Automation is relentless and not everyone can be a plumber. Zoom out. It's a big problem that most people derive their social power from labor while the demand for labor is clearly on a long term downward trend. Even if progress slows way down, even if the next wave of progress only dispossesses people who you hate and feel comfortable farming for schadenfreude, we will have to deal with this eventually. Defaulting means our society will look like (insert cyberpunk nightmare world here).
  - oytis 3y ago
    I am not hating anyone, being a white collar worker myself. My point is that a whole lot of people already live like that, without having much power from their labour, and the sky is not falling. More people might be joining them, and the illusion of meritocracy might be harder to maintain in the future, but extreme poverty, hunger etc. is something we will likely be able to avoid
holmesworcester 3y ago
Most moral and legal systems hold genocide in a special place, and this is natural, because systematically killing all members of a religious or ethnic group is more damaging than killing some members. Eliminating a disease like smallpox is a much more significant achievement than simply mitigating it or treating it. When we really eliminate a disease it may never come back! This list of experts is worried about us building something that will do to us what we did to smallpox. For the same reasons as above, that is more worrying than extreme poverty and the comparison you are making is a false equivalence. Another way to look at it is, you can't fight to end poverty when you no longer exist. We can argue about whether the risk is real, but if this set of experts thinks it is, and you disagree for some reason, I would spend some time thinking deeply about whether that reason is simply based in a failure of imagination on your part, and whether you are sure enough to bet your life and everyone else's on that reason. Everyone can think of a security system strong enough that they themselves can't imagine a way to break it. Similarly, anyone can think of a reason why superhuman AGI is impossible or why it can't really hurt us.
- max_ 3y ago
  Yes, I agree with you. Poverty many not be an existential risk. But something like Nuclear War might be.
ericb 3y ago
If there's no humanity, presumably those people would be worse off, no?

HereBePandas 3y ago

> If only we would fight for the real issues like... I've heard these arguments many times and they never make sense to me. Most of the people I know working on AI do so precisely because they want to solve the "real issues" like climate change and believe that radically accelerating scientific innovation via AI is the key to doing so. And some fraction of those people also worry that if AI -> AGI (accidentally or intentionally), then you could have major negative side effects (including extinction-level events).

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

It doesn't feel nice when the real issues that you care about are passively dismissed as fantasies, with no supporting argument, does it?

DoneWithAllThat 3y ago

The response to climate change in recent years, even the most recent decade, is massive and global. This dumb trope that we’re not doing anything about is rooted in no amount of progress here will be accepted as sufficient. It’s a religion at this point.

autonomousErwin 3y ago

Isn't this how people started raising awareness for climate change - the scientists, engineers, and researchers are the most vocal to start with (and then inevitably politics and tribalism consume it) Why not believe them now, assuming you believed them when they were calling out for action on climate change decades ago?

kypro 3y ago

What's the point in dismissing the need for AI safety? Are you guys Russian bots, or do you genuinely see no reason to worry about AI safety? But since I see these kinds of snarky responses often – we obviously do worry about climate change and various other issues. Continued advancements in AI is just one of many issues that face us which humanity should be concerned about. Few concerned about AI would argue it comes at the expense of other issues, but in addition to them. If you're saying it's a matter of priorities and that currently humanity is dedicating too much of its collective resource to AI safety I think you're probably over estimating current amount of funding and research going into AI safety. If you're saying that AI safety is a non-issue then you're probably not well informed on the topic.

arp242 3y ago
This page talks about "extinction from AI". I'm sorry, but I think that's a complete non-issue for the foreseeable future. I just don't see how that will happen beyond spectacular science fiction scenarios that are just not going to happen. If that makes me a Russian bot then, well, хорошо! The risks from AI will be banal and boring. Spam, blogspam, fake articles, fake pictures, what-have-you. Those things are an issue, but not "extinction" issues.
- kypro 3y ago
  Apologies, the Russian bot comment was more me venting frustration at the prevalence of low-effort response like yours (sorry) to those who try to raise concerns about AI safety. I do agree with you that extinction from AI isn't likely to be an issue this decade. However, I would note that it's difficult to predict what the rate of change is likely to be once you have scalable general intelligence. I can't speak for people who signed this, but for me the trends and risks of AI are just as clear as those of climate change. I don't worry that climate change is going to be a major issue this decade (and perhaps not even next), but it's obvious where the trend is going when you project out. Similarly the "real" risks of AI may not be this decade, but they are coming. And again, I'd stress it's extremely hard to project when that will be since when you have a scalable general intelligence progress is likely to accelerate exponentially. So that said, where do we disagree here? Are you saying with a high level of certainty that extinction risks from AI are too far in the future to worry about? If so, when do you think extinction risks from AI are likely to be a concern – a couple of decades, more? Do you hold similar views about the present extinction risk of climate change – and if so, why not? Could I also ask if you believe any resources in the present should be dedicated to the existential risks future AI capabilities could pose to humanity? And if not, when would you like to see resources put into those risks? Is there some level of capability that you're waiting to see before you begin to be concerned?

mlinsey 3y ago

Not sure what you mean, the movement to combat climate change is orders of magnitude bigger than the movement to combat AI risk - in terms of organizations dedicated to it, dollars donated, legislation passed, international treaties signed, investment in technologies to mitigate the risk. Of course, the difference is that the technologies causing climate change are more deeply embedded throughout the economy, and so political resistance to anti-climate change measures is very strong as well. This is one reason in favor of addressing risk earlier, before we make our civilization as dependent on large neural nets as it currently is on fossil fuels. A climate change movement in the mid-1800s when the internal combustion engine was just taking off would also have been seen as quixotic and engaging in sci-fi fantasies though.