3 ms·
I think the article makes some good points. Andressen it seems wants to have it both ways. > Marc says that these models will soon become loving tutors and coa
by kaycey2022 3y ago
I think the article makes some good points. Andressen it seems wants to have it both ways.
> Marc says that these models will soon become loving tutors and coaches, frontier scientists and creative artists, that they will “take on new challenges that have been impossible to tackle without AI, from curing all diseases to achieving interstellar travel.” How does it do all this without developing something like a mind?1 Why do you think something so smart that it can solve problems beyond the grasp of human civilization will somehow totally be in your control?
These are fair questions. I think Andressen is doing that for the purpose of boosting this hype cycle and lay his hands on more venture funds. But at the same time Andressen is completely right to ask for a "falsifiable hypothesis".
The doomers have to mathematically prove that AI will kill humanity in all these ways to justify what they are asking for - completely restrictive regulations that will just entrench the current players in the field.
A lot of the fears expressed in the article itself seem to come from a very poor understanding of what these GPT tools are doing in the first place. At a wider level what is really misaligned is our misunderstanding of language and how central it is to "intelligence" itself.
- arisAlexis 3y ago>The doomers have to mathematically prove that AI will kill humanity. No, since almost all AI inventors and foundeds signed saying there is grave risk, the non dormers should mathematically prove we will not all die, not vice versa. The pharmaceuticals need to prove drug is harmless not the FDA to prove it is harmful!
- kaycey2022 3y agoI'll counter your appeal to authority with my own. Most "founders" are idiots with mental issues and there are no AI inventors. The letter was signed by people with vested interests or mids like Eliezer Yudkowsky who have never made a single thing their lives. Serious AI scientists have already said that these new models are not capable of reasoning and we should be OK as long as Lawyers don't use GPT to create legal arguments and the government doesn't plug "AI" into the systems managing the nuclear arsenals. In other words the danger to humanity has always been our own stupidity. No AI is coming to eat us. The entire doomer movement is an outbreak of daddy issues/oedipus complex at a massive scale.
- arisAlexis 3y agoI get that you are saying that Bengio and Hinton are not like Einstein and Openheimer. Your problem with the "appeal to authority" is a cultural and psychological problem and not real so I cannot have a counter argument. It's simply science denial. Check one by one the names. It's the top science community. Ilya invented backpropagation and Paul Christiano RFLH the backbone of how current models work.
- kaycey2022 3y agoWhat do you mean cultural?
- arisAlexis 3y agoI mean there is a whole philosophical / cultural movement that doesn't like the appeal to authority arguments. Like OK Einstein says gravity bends space. "No I don't accept what this guys says, I have my own mind etc it doesn'tmake sense to me". You can't argue with that. Appeal to majority (and not minority) scientific consensus should be and is a very valid argument in a discussion.