3 ms·
What? I never proposed that dichotomy and don't believe in it. You did and you're tripping over it a bit. You can just discard that model and engage with the su
by ethanbond 3y ago
What? I never proposed that dichotomy and don't believe in it. You did and you're tripping over it a bit. You can just discard that model and engage with the substance of the topic, you know!
- jrflowers 3y agoThe substance of this discussion is that a language model has never convinced anyone to crash a plane into a building and your position is that pointing out that fact is to ignore the material reality of the possibility of some theoretically advanced technology (which could maybe be adjacent to language models) at some point convincing a hypothetical person to crash a plane into a building. That is to say, the substance here is an emotional doomsday reaction to a benign statement of undisputed fact — a language model has never convinced a person to crash a plane into a building. Watching a cell divide into two cells: “Why isn’t anyone talking about the possibility that this is Hitler??”
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoWhy aren't you mentioning that an LLM has already convinced someone to commit suicide? Why are you being deliberately obtuse about the unknowable-ness of the exponential curve the enthusiasts on one hand salivate over, and on the other confidently assert optimism just as you're doing?