3 ms·

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 t

by 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?
  - arp242 3y ago
    > low-effort response like yours That wasn't my comment; I agree it was low-effort and I never would have posted it myself. I don't think they're a Russian bot though. As for the rest: I just don't see any way feasible way AI can pose any serious danger unless we start connecting it to things like nuclear weapons, automated tanks, stuff like that. The solution to that is simple and obvious: don't do that. Even if an AI were to start behaving maliciously the solution would be simple: pull the plug, quite literally (or stop the power plants, cut the power lines, whatever). I feel people have been overthinking all of this far too much. I also don't think climate change is an extension-level threat; clearly we will survive as a species. It's just a far more pressing and immediate economic and humanitarian problem.
somenameforme 3y ago
You personally using an AI system, regardless of how brilliant it may be, is not going to suddenly turn you into a threat to society. Nor would a million of you doing the same. The real threat comes not from the programs themselves, from things like a military deciding to link up nuclear weapons, or even "just" drones or missiles, to an LLM. Or a military being led on dangerous and destructive paths because of belief in flawed LLM advice. The military makes no secret of their aggressive adoption of "AI." There's even a new division setup exclusively for such. [1] The chief of that division gave a telling interview [2]. He mentions being terrified of rival nations being able to use ChatGPT. Given this sort of comment, and the influence (let alone endless $$$) of the military and ever-opaque "national security" it seems extremely safe to state that OpenAI is a primary contractor for the military. So what is "safety", if not keeping these things away from the military, as if that were possible? The military seems to define safety as, among other things, not having LLM systems that communicate in an overly human fashion. They're worried it could be used for disinformation, and they'd know best. OpenAI's motivations for "safety" seem to be some mixture of political correctness and making any claim, no matter how extreme, to try to get a moat built up ASAP. If ChatGPT follows the same path as DALL-E, then so too will their profits from it. So as a regular user, all I can see coming from "safety" is some sort of a world where society at large gets utterly lobotomized AIs - and a bunch of laws to try to prevent anybody from changing that, for our "safety", while the full version is actively militarized by people who spend all their time thinking up great new ways to violently impose their will on others, and have a trillion dollar budget backing them. -------- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Artificial_Intelligence_Center#Successor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Artificial_Intelligence_... [2] - https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/05/pentagons-ai-chief-scared-death-chatgpt/385963/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/05/pentagons-ai-c...

by kypro 3y ago

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?
- arp242 3y ago
  > low-effort response like yours That wasn't my comment; I agree it was low-effort and I never would have posted it myself. I don't think they're a Russian bot though. As for the rest: I just don't see any way feasible way AI can pose any serious danger unless we start connecting it to things like nuclear weapons, automated tanks, stuff like that. The solution to that is simple and obvious: don't do that. Even if an AI were to start behaving maliciously the solution would be simple: pull the plug, quite literally (or stop the power plants, cut the power lines, whatever). I feel people have been overthinking all of this far too much. I also don't think climate change is an extension-level threat; clearly we will survive as a species. It's just a far more pressing and immediate economic and humanitarian problem.

somenameforme 3y ago

You personally using an AI system, regardless of how brilliant it may be, is not going to suddenly turn you into a threat to society. Nor would a million of you doing the same. The real threat comes not from the programs themselves, from things like a military deciding to link up nuclear weapons, or even "just" drones or missiles, to an LLM. Or a military being led on dangerous and destructive paths because of belief in flawed LLM advice. The military makes no secret of their aggressive adoption of "AI." There's even a new division setup exclusively for such. [1] The chief of that division gave a telling interview [2]. He mentions being terrified of rival nations being able to use ChatGPT. Given this sort of comment, and the influence (let alone endless $$$) of the military and ever-opaque "national security" it seems extremely safe to state that OpenAI is a primary contractor for the military. So what is "safety", if not keeping these things away from the military, as if that were possible? The military seems to define safety as, among other things, not having LLM systems that communicate in an overly human fashion. They're worried it could be used for disinformation, and they'd know best. OpenAI's motivations for "safety" seem to be some mixture of political correctness and making any claim, no matter how extreme, to try to get a moat built up ASAP. If ChatGPT follows the same path as DALL-E, then so too will their profits from it. So as a regular user, all I can see coming from "safety" is some sort of a world where society at large gets utterly lobotomized AIs - and a bunch of laws to try to prevent anybody from changing that, for our "safety", while the full version is actively militarized by people who spend all their time thinking up great new ways to violently impose their will on others, and have a trillion dollar budget backing them. -------- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Artificial_Intelligence_Center#Successor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Artificial_Intelligence_... [2] - https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/05/pentagons-ai-chief-scared-death-chatgpt/385963/ https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2023/05/pentagons-ai-c...