3 ms·

Marc Andreessen on the Sam Harris podcast yesterday arguing that we don't need to worry about AI: > The moral of every story is "the good guys win" https://ww

Marc Andreessen on the Sam Harris podcast yesterday arguing that we don't need to worry about AI: > The moral of every story is "the good guys win" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMnH6KYNuWg&t=3064s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMnH6KYNuWg&t=3064s

eis 3y ago
He was also on the Lex Fridman podcast a week ago. Seems like he's doing something of a roadshow related to AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxeDjAxvJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxeDjAxvJ8
- timmytokyo 3y ago
  He's got egg on his face now that blockchain failed to pan out as the next big thing. AI is the new hype/grift cycle.
CPLX 3y ago
The correct way to explain this concept of course is to note that in every story with a moral, the winners are designated as the good guys.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> The moral of every story is "the good guys win" > The correct way to explain this concept of course is to note that in every story with a moral, the winners are designated as the good guys. That doesn't salvage it. His statement (and your rephrasing) is demonstrably false, as illustrated many if not most cautionary tales.
ethanbond 3y ago
Famously this happens by good guys saying “there’s no problem here because good guys always win.”
ChatGTP 3y ago
I listened to this too, as Sam mentions during the introduction, Marc is on the board of Meta and that he is invested in AI startups, from that moment, his views make sense to me. I thought he had very, very weak arguments and defenses, especially the "thermodynamic" argument he keeps going on with. It was a very, very stark contrast between his interview with Lex Fridman, who really didn't give him much else but a platform with zero push back. Sam made him work a lot harder to explain his often naive and overly optimistic views. Side note: It actually made me think that Sam's podcast is probably worth paying for. Glad people like that exist.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Watching Lex interview two sides of an issue with VIPs is such a let down. He's like the average Youtube commenter, whatever was the last argument put before them is what he's agreeing with. If you spend 95% of your interview agreeing with Yudkowsky, then offer those rebuttals to Marc Andreesen, don't spend Andreesen's interview 95% agreeing with him too. You're offering nothing, so Yudkowsky and Andreesen should just be debating each other without you there.
yonran 3y ago
I listened to the Sam Harris interview (the free part). I was disappointed that Marc Andreessen seemed to misunderstand the AI safety concerns of the alignment problem (undesirable subgoals of AI) and does not acknowledge the possibility that AI will use deception. I still think his essay is a good counter to the generally negative coverage of AI in the media and from effective altruism communities. I think catastrophic AI alignment is a much smaller risk than the people who own the AIs being unaligned (arms races with hostile countries, terrorists, other antisocial people using AIs).
reducesuffering 3y ago
You know, AI-will-be-super-positive people deride AI-doomerism as being the religious one. But the only religious appeals seem to come from the positivity camp. Another one is Copilot creator's: "Doomerism can be dispelled. Believe that this universe is the one, maybe the only one in the multiverse, where things work out. Otherwise humans, life, earth would be long gone by now." https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1553863686732775425 https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1553863686732775425

eis 3y ago

He was also on the Lex Fridman podcast a week ago. Seems like he's doing something of a roadshow related to AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxeDjAxvJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxeDjAxvJ8

timmytokyo 3y ago
He's got egg on his face now that blockchain failed to pan out as the next big thing. AI is the new hype/grift cycle.

CPLX 3y ago

The correct way to explain this concept of course is to note that in every story with a moral, the winners are designated as the good guys.

tivert 3y ago
>> The moral of every story is "the good guys win" > The correct way to explain this concept of course is to note that in every story with a moral, the winners are designated as the good guys. That doesn't salvage it. His statement (and your rephrasing) is demonstrably false, as illustrated many if not most cautionary tales.

ethanbond 3y ago

Famously this happens by good guys saying “there’s no problem here because good guys always win.”

ChatGTP 3y ago

I listened to this too, as Sam mentions during the introduction, Marc is on the board of Meta and that he is invested in AI startups, from that moment, his views make sense to me. I thought he had very, very weak arguments and defenses, especially the "thermodynamic" argument he keeps going on with. It was a very, very stark contrast between his interview with Lex Fridman, who really didn't give him much else but a platform with zero push back. Sam made him work a lot harder to explain his often naive and overly optimistic views. Side note: It actually made me think that Sam's podcast is probably worth paying for. Glad people like that exist.

reducesuffering 3y ago
Watching Lex interview two sides of an issue with VIPs is such a let down. He's like the average Youtube commenter, whatever was the last argument put before them is what he's agreeing with. If you spend 95% of your interview agreeing with Yudkowsky, then offer those rebuttals to Marc Andreesen, don't spend Andreesen's interview 95% agreeing with him too. You're offering nothing, so Yudkowsky and Andreesen should just be debating each other without you there.

yonran 3y ago

I listened to the Sam Harris interview (the free part). I was disappointed that Marc Andreessen seemed to misunderstand the AI safety concerns of the alignment problem (undesirable subgoals of AI) and does not acknowledge the possibility that AI will use deception. I still think his essay is a good counter to the generally negative coverage of AI in the media and from effective altruism communities. I think catastrophic AI alignment is a much smaller risk than the people who own the AIs being unaligned (arms races with hostile countries, terrorists, other antisocial people using AIs).

reducesuffering 3y ago

You know, AI-will-be-super-positive people deride AI-doomerism as being the religious one. But the only religious appeals seem to come from the positivity camp. Another one is Copilot creator's: "Doomerism can be dispelled. Believe that this universe is the one, maybe the only one in the multiverse, where things work out. Otherwise humans, life, earth would be long gone by now." https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1553863686732775425 https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1553863686732775425