3 ms·
So you are saying they are dangerous, but not because they are powerful, but rather because of misguided social policy created based on the mistaken belief that
by ftxbro 3y ago
So you are saying they are dangerous, but not because they are powerful, but rather because of misguided social policy created based on the mistaken belief that they are or will be powerful?
- ggm 3y agoPowerful has no inherent meaning here? No special AI specific meaning? Lots of things are powerful and dangerous. Sure, LLMs and GAN are powerful and potentially dangerous because of that power. Deep fakes are dangerous. The "power" of these systems is their applicability to problem solving, not some inherent "it's alive" AGI risk. Yes, social policy which is unregulated and unconstrained based purely on belief of their capabilities would be bad. We've seen this before in expert systems codifying systemic bias (for instance) The "rather" and "not because" imply some exclusivity of debate which I don't think applies. I won't magically change my mind here because of some rhetorical flourish in a line of argument (Sorry.. I am just a bit over adversarial debate online and suspicious of direct questions like this.)
- ftxbro 3y agoI wasn't trying to do a rhetorical false dichotomy I was just trying to understand how something can be connectionist nonsense where adding more branches and data to a model will not make intelligence yet also so powerful and capable of solving problems that it is dangerous. I guess it's just a question of the meaning of intelligence. If an LLM is so capable at solving problems that it becomes dangerous then I would seriously consider to call it intelligence.