5 ms·

Hinton has been exaggerating the capabilities of AI for nearly a decade. As one example, if we listened to him in 2016/17 we would have an even worse radiologis

Hinton has been exaggerating the capabilities of AI for nearly a decade. As one example, if we listened to him in 2016/17 we would have an even worse radiologist shortage than we do right now. > The point is not that any one particular situation will occur. It's that there are an unknown number of factors in what makes an AI "smart enough" and in what makes it "misaligned". There are hypothetical scenarios where a hyperintelligent AI creates goals for itself that necessitate our extinction, and we don't know how those scenarios come into existence or how to stop them. Assuming they won't happen is just burying our heads in the sand. It’s not assuming it won’t happen or burying our heads in the sands, it’s calling for measured responses. My point is that we can worry and have the discussion without being alarmist and enacting premature regulation. Autonomous AGI, whenever that happens, absolutely poses a threat. But it’s extremely exaggerated to think what we have today, or even what is known on the horizon, represents that. People assume advancements will continue to happen at their current pace. The last 6 years of advancements has been the product of scaling and refining self-attention + transformers from 2017/8. > so who did I’m not sure what you’re getting at. No one had the will/resources to burn billions on a language model that has ??? business plan, doesn’t mean no one saw it coming.

digging 3y ago
> Hinton has been exaggerating the capabilities of AI for nearly a decade. As one example, if we listened to him in 2016/17 we would have an even worse radiologist shortage than we do right now. I can appreciate that. I haven't been listening to him for that long; having no idea what situation you're discussing, I'll take it at face value. > My point is that we can worry and have the discussion without being alarmist and enacting premature regulation. That's pretty reasonable. However, I will reiterate that this: > it’s extremely exaggerated to think what we have today, or even what is known on the horizon, represents that. is not what I'm asserting. It's the unknowns which are dangerous. We're inventing something new in almost every way imaginable. It's not like we're talking about a new theoretical steelmaking process which could upset the economy, we're talking about the potential to build a new life form with godlike abilities. Alarm seems warranted to me. Sure, it might not happen soon... but also, it might happen soon. Shouldn't we be trying to prevent it, or control it, before it happens? > People assume advancements will continue to happen at their current pace. I think people assume advancements will accelerate, actually.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > I can appreciate that. I haven't been listening to him for that long; having no idea what situation you're discussing, I'll take it at face value. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMPRXstSvQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMPRXstSvQ We are currently facing the biggest radiologist shortage in the last 30 years. > It’s the unknowns which are dangerous. Electricity, the Industrial Revolution, the internet, gene editing/bionengineering also came with unknown existential risks. > We’re inventing something new in almost every way imaginable. > I think people assume advancements will accelerate, actually. This is highly debatable. > we're talking about the potential to build a new life form with godlike abilities. Evidence? This has been stated in sci-fi books from before I was born and I don’t see any proof that we’re building something remotely close to this.
  - carimura 3y ago
    > Electricity, the Industrial Revolution, the internet, gene editing/bionengineering also came with unknown existential risks. In a way, all of those things have led to where we are now. And might I point out that a form of bioengineering may have caused the latest global pandemic? Not taking these things seriously because "they haven't killed us all yet" seems a little shortsighted.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      "not taking these things seriously" is very different from regulating something in it's infancy because of fear of the unknown. > And might I point out that a form of bioengineering may have caused the latest global pandemic? Even accepting this hypothesis as true, is the answer that we should have regulated cell culture in the 50s when HeLa cell culture became a thing? Would that have prevented a nation-state from potentially causing a pandemic?
      - digging 3y ago
        > "not taking these things seriously" is very different from regulating something in it's infancy because of fear of the unknown. I mean, we should have better regulated carbon emissions generations ago. We'd have a lot more time to deal with it, because we haven't been able to deal with it in the century+ we've known about it. And AI extinction risk is likely to move faster than carbon-related climate change.

digging 3y ago

> Hinton has been exaggerating the capabilities of AI for nearly a decade. As one example, if we listened to him in 2016/17 we would have an even worse radiologist shortage than we do right now. I can appreciate that. I haven't been listening to him for that long; having no idea what situation you're discussing, I'll take it at face value. > My point is that we can worry and have the discussion without being alarmist and enacting premature regulation. That's pretty reasonable. However, I will reiterate that this: > it’s extremely exaggerated to think what we have today, or even what is known on the horizon, represents that. is not what I'm asserting. It's the unknowns which are dangerous. We're inventing something new in almost every way imaginable. It's not like we're talking about a new theoretical steelmaking process which could upset the economy, we're talking about the potential to build a new life form with godlike abilities. Alarm seems warranted to me. Sure, it might not happen soon... but also, it might happen soon. Shouldn't we be trying to prevent it, or control it, before it happens? > People assume advancements will continue to happen at their current pace. I think people assume advancements will accelerate, actually.

haldujai 3y ago
> I can appreciate that. I haven't been listening to him for that long; having no idea what situation you're discussing, I'll take it at face value. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMPRXstSvQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMPRXstSvQ We are currently facing the biggest radiologist shortage in the last 30 years. > It’s the unknowns which are dangerous. Electricity, the Industrial Revolution, the internet, gene editing/bionengineering also came with unknown existential risks. > We’re inventing something new in almost every way imaginable. > I think people assume advancements will accelerate, actually. This is highly debatable. > we're talking about the potential to build a new life form with godlike abilities. Evidence? This has been stated in sci-fi books from before I was born and I don’t see any proof that we’re building something remotely close to this.
- carimura 3y ago
  > Electricity, the Industrial Revolution, the internet, gene editing/bionengineering also came with unknown existential risks. In a way, all of those things have led to where we are now. And might I point out that a form of bioengineering may have caused the latest global pandemic? Not taking these things seriously because "they haven't killed us all yet" seems a little shortsighted.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    "not taking these things seriously" is very different from regulating something in it's infancy because of fear of the unknown. > And might I point out that a form of bioengineering may have caused the latest global pandemic? Even accepting this hypothesis as true, is the answer that we should have regulated cell culture in the 50s when HeLa cell culture became a thing? Would that have prevented a nation-state from potentially causing a pandemic?
    - digging 3y ago
      > "not taking these things seriously" is very different from regulating something in it's infancy because of fear of the unknown. I mean, we should have better regulated carbon emissions generations ago. We'd have a lot more time to deal with it, because we haven't been able to deal with it in the century+ we've known about it. And AI extinction risk is likely to move faster than carbon-related climate change.