5 ms·

The calls for regulation are rallied around what is called AI existential risk. I am taking umbrage with these calls for regulation by stating we are no where c

by carom 3y ago

The calls for regulation are rallied around what is called AI existential risk. I am taking umbrage with these calls for regulation by stating we are no where close to artificial intelligence (current generation is content generation, no logic, no truth) and that it poses no risk. There is a further argument that even with actual AI, which people have written volumes of sci-fi tier essays about how it will kill us all, that there has been no demonstrated risk, only speculation.

haswell 3y ago
We know that progress towards ever more sophisticated AI will be incremental, with occasional breakthroughs and leaps forward. But even assuming we never leap forward again, the ideal time to sort out what to do when some threshold is crossed is before we have crossed that threshold. By way of analogy, the climate crisis is arguably suffering from the same kinds of thinking. We’ve never witnessed the kinds of climate catastrophe that we know is around the corner, but that doesn’t stop people who understand the dynamics from taking it seriously. It also hasn’t stopped a very vocal and powerful opposition who won’t be convinced until we experience real catastrophe. To me, the argument that we’re nowhere close is unconvincing, and I’d argue irrelevant. Even if the real risk is decades away, we’re now living in the moment where we can mitigate risks before they become pressingly real. Anything else is kicking the can down the road. > There is a further argument that even with actual AI, which people have written volumes of sci-fi tier essays about how it will kill us all, that there has been no demonstrated risk How would you define “demonstrated risk”? We’re at a stage where all we can do is speculate and predict based on our models of the world as they currently exist. That says nothing about the actual intrinsic risks that we are or are not speculating about. And again, the climate crisis seems like a useful parallel to consider.
- carom 3y ago
  >Even if the real risk is decades away... All we can do is ... predict based on our models... What real risk? What models? Climate change is not a useful parallel because changing weather has an actual impact on human safety. No one can articulate the risks that AGI would pose beyond speculative fiction. It's going to clone itself to every device and turn us into paperclips by emailing an on-demand gene printing lab to make a super virus!! Sure, whatever man. Just because you can say the words "X is similar to Y" does not make it true. This applies to comparisons with nuclear weapons, guns, climate change, et al. I understand how all of those things can kill me. No one has made a reasonable argument for how an LLM could harm me, much less an argument convincing enough to justify the regulatory capture sought by these companies.
George83728 3y ago
You aren't answering my question. I asked about the relationship between 'is it dangerous?' and 'is it AI?' Some relationship between these questions was suggested by you in the comment I responded to above: > "The current generation of work is not AI. [THEREFORE?] The risks it poses are minimal. You cannot hurt me with an LLM." and again suggested by this remark: > "we are no where close to artificial intelligence (current generation is content generation, no logic, no truth) and [THEREFORE?] it poses no risk." You seems to be claiming that LLMs aren't dangerous because they aren't AI. Does the set of dangerous things belong to the set of AI? Pipe bombs and pit vipers aren't AI, so does that mean they aren't dangerous? They are, therefore the set of all dangerous things does not belong to the set of AI. Why then is "The current generation of work is not AI" thought to support the assertion that LLMs cannot be dangerous? I think it could be reasonable for you to assert that LLMs have not yet been demonstrated to be dangerous enough to warrant regulation. But that's not what was asserted above; you asserted that LLMs cannot hurt people, and the supporting argument seems to be 'because they aren't real AI'. That is simply illogical. Whether or not LLMs are sci-fi tier AI is irrelevant; it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not LLMs are dangerous. tl;dr: Rattlesnakes aren't AI, therefore rattlesnakes can't hurt me.
- carom 3y ago
  You're arguing a complete straw man. Please read the sentence before the one you are hyper focused on. I am taking a position against everything about the current narrative. 1) Calling the current generation of tech AI. 2) The idea that AI is dangerous. 3) The conclusion that regulation is required. You're hallucinating some causality in the statements that isn't written. It has not been demonstrated that AI (AGI) will be dangerous. Further, LMMs are not AI. LLMs have also not been demonstrated to be dangerous. We do not need to give OpenAI (Microsoft) regulatory capture.
  - George83728 3y ago
    So your objection to LLMs being called AI is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with your objection to LLMs being regulated? That's not the impression I got from either of your comments.

by carom 3y ago

haswell 3y ago

We know that progress towards ever more sophisticated AI will be incremental, with occasional breakthroughs and leaps forward. But even assuming we never leap forward again, the ideal time to sort out what to do when some threshold is crossed is before we have crossed that threshold. By way of analogy, the climate crisis is arguably suffering from the same kinds of thinking. We’ve never witnessed the kinds of climate catastrophe that we know is around the corner, but that doesn’t stop people who understand the dynamics from taking it seriously. It also hasn’t stopped a very vocal and powerful opposition who won’t be convinced until we experience real catastrophe. To me, the argument that we’re nowhere close is unconvincing, and I’d argue irrelevant. Even if the real risk is decades away, we’re now living in the moment where we can mitigate risks before they become pressingly real. Anything else is kicking the can down the road. > There is a further argument that even with actual AI, which people have written volumes of sci-fi tier essays about how it will kill us all, that there has been no demonstrated risk How would you define “demonstrated risk”? We’re at a stage where all we can do is speculate and predict based on our models of the world as they currently exist. That says nothing about the actual intrinsic risks that we are or are not speculating about. And again, the climate crisis seems like a useful parallel to consider.

carom 3y ago
>Even if the real risk is decades away... All we can do is ... predict based on our models... What real risk? What models? Climate change is not a useful parallel because changing weather has an actual impact on human safety. No one can articulate the risks that AGI would pose beyond speculative fiction. It's going to clone itself to every device and turn us into paperclips by emailing an on-demand gene printing lab to make a super virus!! Sure, whatever man. Just because you can say the words "X is similar to Y" does not make it true. This applies to comparisons with nuclear weapons, guns, climate change, et al. I understand how all of those things can kill me. No one has made a reasonable argument for how an LLM could harm me, much less an argument convincing enough to justify the regulatory capture sought by these companies.

George83728 3y ago

You aren't answering my question. I asked about the relationship between 'is it dangerous?' and 'is it AI?' Some relationship between these questions was suggested by you in the comment I responded to above: > "The current generation of work is not AI. [THEREFORE?] The risks it poses are minimal. You cannot hurt me with an LLM." and again suggested by this remark: > "we are no where close to artificial intelligence (current generation is content generation, no logic, no truth) and [THEREFORE?] it poses no risk." You seems to be claiming that LLMs aren't dangerous because they aren't AI. Does the set of dangerous things belong to the set of AI? Pipe bombs and pit vipers aren't AI, so does that mean they aren't dangerous? They are, therefore the set of all dangerous things does not belong to the set of AI. Why then is "The current generation of work is not AI" thought to support the assertion that LLMs cannot be dangerous? I think it could be reasonable for you to assert that LLMs have not yet been demonstrated to be dangerous enough to warrant regulation. But that's not what was asserted above; you asserted that LLMs cannot hurt people, and the supporting argument seems to be 'because they aren't real AI'. That is simply illogical. Whether or not LLMs are sci-fi tier AI is irrelevant; it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not LLMs are dangerous. tl;dr: Rattlesnakes aren't AI, therefore rattlesnakes can't hurt me.

carom 3y ago
You're arguing a complete straw man. Please read the sentence before the one you are hyper focused on. I am taking a position against everything about the current narrative. 1) Calling the current generation of tech AI. 2) The idea that AI is dangerous. 3) The conclusion that regulation is required. You're hallucinating some causality in the statements that isn't written. It has not been demonstrated that AI (AGI) will be dangerous. Further, LMMs are not AI. LLMs have also not been demonstrated to be dangerous. We do not need to give OpenAI (Microsoft) regulatory capture.
- George83728 3y ago
  So your objection to LLMs being called AI is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with your objection to LLMs being regulated? That's not the impression I got from either of your comments.