3 ms·

Maybe these people have good intentions and are just being naive They might not be getting paid, but that doesn’t mean they are not being influenced AI at thi

by nico 3y ago

Maybe these people have good intentions and are just being naive They might not be getting paid, but that doesn’t mean they are not being influenced AI at this point is pretty much completely open, all the papers, math and science behind it are public Soon, people will have advanced AI running locally on their phones and watches So unless they scrub the Internet, start censoring this stuff, and pretty much ban computers, there is absolutely no way to stop AI nor any potentially bad actors from using it The biggest issues that we should be addressing regarding AI are the potential jobs losses and increased inequality at local and global scale But of course, the people who usually make these decisions are the ones that benefit the most from inequality, so

paulddraper 3y ago
You don't have to be a mustache-twirling villain to have the same effect.
pydry 3y ago
>Maybe these people have good intentions and are just being naive Ive noticed a lot of good people take awful political positions this way. Usually they trust the wrong person - e.g. by falling victim to the just world fallacy ("X is a big deal in our world and X wouldn't be where they are if they werent a decent person. X must have a point.")
jstarfish 3y ago
> Soon, people will have advanced AI running locally on their phones and watches Yeah, with drugs being legal now I've been wondering what the next boogeyman we're going to declare war on would be.
nopinsight 3y ago
You are attributing naivety on a technical matter to many people who have done world class research and some of them are even a pioneer of their subfield of study. To do that level of research, one needs strong independent thinking skills and deep technical expertise. We have plenty of evidence on this very site how hard it is to influence technical people and change their opinion.
- nico 3y ago
  Not attributing anything, just pointing out an alternative explanation to the one that it is given in the comment that it is responding to However, you seem to be attributing super-human capabilities to a whole group of people for some reason
  - nopinsight 3y ago
    One does not need to be have super-human capabilities to foresee potential risks of the technology one is an expert in. Yes, the current version of AI is not capable of large scale harm by itself yet, but the plausible trajectory is worth warning about. Gordon Moore did make fairly accurate predictions after all.
    - nico 3y ago
      > One does not need to be have super-human capabilities to foresee potential risks of the technology one is an expert in You are right. And no one is arguing the contrary We can all see the risks The thing is, what do we do about it Regulating AI will only serve to help the big players and keep others out
      - PeterStuer 3y ago
        That would depend on the specifics of the regulation though. I do agree that the likelihood of regulatory capture in this arena is very high.
melagonster 3y ago
I sure when openAI converted to successful company, we had lost the game. AGI had won whole world. openAI was the organisation should stop AI damage.
nmvbnmv 3y ago
There's range of functionality in software technology, i.e. some new framework, may have been outputed fully developed and internally debugged for years in some startup, or you could have a really almost not even a production level software, just uploaded to github. In most projects, many unmatured software is being used just because works for some specific task, nowadays. With that in mind, it is easy to hyphotetize that many projects are already using LLMs internally. Not always for good deeds, easily, one of the most and best use cases, is to use LLMs to command & control distributed malware. So there you go, it maybe possible that some beta level of intelligent malware is already roaming the Internet right now. We'll know for sure in some years from now (the usual time for advanced malware to be discovered is somewhat 2-3 years after it has been took it to production).

by nico 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

You don't have to be a mustache-twirling villain to have the same effect.

pydry 3y ago

>Maybe these people have good intentions and are just being naive Ive noticed a lot of good people take awful political positions this way. Usually they trust the wrong person - e.g. by falling victim to the just world fallacy ("X is a big deal in our world and X wouldn't be where they are if they werent a decent person. X must have a point.")

jstarfish 3y ago

> Soon, people will have advanced AI running locally on their phones and watches Yeah, with drugs being legal now I've been wondering what the next boogeyman we're going to declare war on would be.

nopinsight 3y ago

You are attributing naivety on a technical matter to many people who have done world class research and some of them are even a pioneer of their subfield of study. To do that level of research, one needs strong independent thinking skills and deep technical expertise. We have plenty of evidence on this very site how hard it is to influence technical people and change their opinion.

nico 3y ago
Not attributing anything, just pointing out an alternative explanation to the one that it is given in the comment that it is responding to However, you seem to be attributing super-human capabilities to a whole group of people for some reason
- nopinsight 3y ago
  One does not need to be have super-human capabilities to foresee potential risks of the technology one is an expert in. Yes, the current version of AI is not capable of large scale harm by itself yet, but the plausible trajectory is worth warning about. Gordon Moore did make fairly accurate predictions after all.
  - nico 3y ago
    > One does not need to be have super-human capabilities to foresee potential risks of the technology one is an expert in You are right. And no one is arguing the contrary We can all see the risks The thing is, what do we do about it Regulating AI will only serve to help the big players and keep others out
    - PeterStuer 3y ago
      That would depend on the specifics of the regulation though. I do agree that the likelihood of regulatory capture in this arena is very high.

melagonster 3y ago

I sure when openAI converted to successful company, we had lost the game. AGI had won whole world. openAI was the organisation should stop AI damage.

nmvbnmv 3y ago

There's range of functionality in software technology, i.e. some new framework, may have been outputed fully developed and internally debugged for years in some startup, or you could have a really almost not even a production level software, just uploaded to github. In most projects, many unmatured software is being used just because works for some specific task, nowadays. With that in mind, it is easy to hyphotetize that many projects are already using LLMs internally. Not always for good deeds, easily, one of the most and best use cases, is to use LLMs to command & control distributed malware. So there you go, it maybe possible that some beta level of intelligent malware is already roaming the Internet right now. We'll know for sure in some years from now (the usual time for advanced malware to be discovered is somewhat 2-3 years after it has been took it to production).