6 ms·

We must destroy OpenAI!

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I agree. Humans should not have AI research or advanced AI at all. It (a) removes purpose from people, (b) presents a situation that is too alien for human minds to handle, (c) increases the addictiveness of technology and thereby pushes us further into growing the technological system, (d) crosses the "adaptability threshhold", i.e. the point at which the PACE of technological development is so rapid that adaptation of our society to such a pace is NO longer possible. In short, we do not have the maturity to handle AI; we are playing with fire. Every person who contributes anything to AI development is responsible for the disasters that AI will bring, and all AI research should be destroyed.
- M3L0NM4N 3y ago
  This is such a pessimistic view to take that I cannot even begin to describe how you are wrong.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I would love to see your rebuttals, especially since I have never seen any strong arguments in favour of AI being a net benefit to society, and I have thought and read about this at lenght. Of course, I always expect downvotes on my posts here since there is a strong tendency towards loving technology here. But what I find most interesting is that there is absolutely no taking of responsibility of any technological creations. Before you downvote, please just ask yourself the following: is it reasonable to say that all these latest AI developments have no serious risks? And in response to your reply, humanity is in quite a precarious state now, so isn't it expected that a sober analysis of it is rather pessimistic, especially with regard to hyper-advanced technologies?
    - jackstraw14 3y ago
      > But what I find most interesting is that there is absolutely no taking of responsibility of any technological creations. I appreciate your willingness to talk about it, but to be honest it doesn't seem like it matters much what you, or any of us (not singling you out in particular), thinks about it, does it? It probably doesn't even matter who these people are who should take responsibility. This is one genie, like the internet, that probably isn't going back in the bottle anytime soon. I haven't seen any argument against "AI" that's much different than those against "the internet" and "computers" that we've at other times in the last 50 years when tech hit new mind-blowing milestones. It just keeps going regardless, right?
      - lacrimacida 3y ago
        It actually does make a difference. The genie is out of the bottle partially but it depends a lot on what we allow it it be used on. If we sit idly and allow for ingesting all what’s written for instance, including whats currently written and let bros make derivative works for a quick buck then we mostly killed the writer’s incentive to write or publish. If we slow down and not allow ripping one another off it could have the opposite effect and trully lift all the boats at once. There’s a concurent thread about Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI, that’s what Im talking about as well here
        jackstraw14 3y ago
        > If we sit idly and allow for ingesting all what’s written for instance It's already happened. What do you do now? For decades, it's happened regardless of the robots.txt so you have to assume it's all been ingested by it all, everywhere. What now?
        Joeri 3y ago
        You can slow things down, but not by more than a few years, because of the gradual democratization of training foundation models. Right now training a model competitive with chatgpt can be done for $150K (microsoft orca 13b). In a few years the cost will be low enough that individuals can train models. At that point regulating it will require draconian dictatorships. I’m also very wary of the copyright angle on this, because just like we don’t prohibit people from learning copyrighted materials in their brains, it feels very wrong to regulate how we train digital brains. I’m ok with forbidding the output of copies of individual existing copyrighted works, but we already have laws on the books for that. I find it downright immoral to prohibit the generation of works “in the style of”. That again reeks like the kind of draconian society I don’t want to live in. People will always be willing to pay for human-made art, just like we pay more for handmade pots, even though machines can make them better, so I think the doomsayers who predict the end of art are flat out wrong. Easy access to mass-generated AI content could be the best thing that happened to true artists, just like chess AI that can beat every human player was the best thing that happened to the chess world. We need labeling laws that show the origin of works so people can choose whether they want artificial or human-made, but please not another extension of the copyright regime to be even more suffocating and hostile of cultural flourishing.
    - ed_mercer 3y ago
      >is it reasonable to say that all these latest AI developments have no serious risks? There are definitely problems today with people abusing ChatGPT for malicious purposes, but given the retardedness of current LLMs I don't think we need to worry about a AI mastermind taking over anytime soon.
    - borissk 3y ago
      If we were a rational civilization we'd stop all scientific research immediately. First there's a good chance the great filter is ahead of us and will be triggered by a technology break-trough. Second with nuclear weapons we got lucky in that it's extremely hard to separate fission capable isotope of uranium from mineral ores; if in the future we invent a powerful weapon that's easy to produce organizations like al-Qaeda will destroy every city on Earth.
      - XorNot 3y ago
        I can't figure out if this is a rebuttal by absurdity or serious?
      - mhandley 3y ago
        The great filter is definitely ahead of us if we stop all scientific research. Just ask the dinosaurs.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        I agree with you that we'd stop scientific research immediately, or at least most of it.
- maximamas 3y ago
  It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    To turn your metaphor on its head, we aren’t playing with fire when we use it constructively; rather we are very carefully and thoughtfully deploying it, no doubt due to our gradual and deadly lessons with it over time. When we “play” with it (a la fireworks or neglected campfires), it wreaks rampant destruction. Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Counterpoint: "playing with it" is the only way we have to actually master something. "Carefully and thoughtfully deploying it" only comes way after many people first extensively played with it (for any specific "it"), first because of curiosity (i.e. for shits and giggles), then for a quick buck.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Maybe because we're on the verge of being able to create fires which can actually consume the only home we have? Playing with fire is in large part an ego and greed issue. Yes, it allows us to dominate, but at what cost? I'd rather live a more balanced life than a greedy and ego driven life. I may not own the world, but I can be happy and sleep sound at night, and that matters.
    - rebolek 3y ago
      We had nuclear weapons for almost 80 years and the world still hasn't ended. And I think that nuclear weapons are way more dangerous than Markov chains on steroids.
      - 3y ago
- carabiner 3y ago
  Serious as a heart attack. I hope that we don't have to resort to military force, but it may be the only option: https://futurism.com/ai-expert-bomb-datacenters https://futurism.com/ai-expert-bomb-datacenters
ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
From the post: [Rumors that start to become lawsuits] Some speculations are: - LibGen (4M+ books) - Sci-Hub (80M+ papers) - All of GitHub This is the most funny, but in the end sad aspect. If ChatGPT was indeed trained on pirated content and is able to be(come) such a powerful tool, then the copyright laws should have been abolished yesterday. If ChatGPT was not trained on all these resources out there, then think how much powerful a tool it would be if it were trained, then copyright laws are actively stifling advancement and should have been abolished yesterday.
- BelleOfTheBall 3y ago
  That is a very dangerous way to approach copyright laws. They are definitely abused by corporations like Disney, infamously so, but abolishing them is absolutely not the answer. Art makers are already struggling en masse, taking away their ability to earn money off their work isn't an answer, especially if it's just to train a predictive text generator.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Counterpoint: there's way too much "art makers", copyright is keeping the quality ceiling down, good content loses monetization game with spam - all while that "predictive text generator" is, for better or worse, pretty much the most magnificent piece of technology invented this century, and - for better or worse - it's likely to become next major shift to economy and life.
    - bergen 3y ago
      How do you believe copyright is keeping the quality down in particular? As I see it, the reason is marketability and trying to conform to standards. Making a new Marvel Movie is sure to have a payoff. Making Parasite MIGHT have a higher payoff, but the risk is way higher. Removing copyright might help to get various more spin-offs and reiterations on previous work, which does increase the scope, but taking the ability for makers to profit from their work in a traditional sense, will bring us closer (back) to a time when commissioned artwork was the main art you saw
arthur_sav 3y ago
Is this how Terminator begins?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic but I agree. Humans should not have AI research or advanced AI at all. It (a) removes purpose from people, (b) presents a situation that is too alien for human minds to handle, (c) increases the addictiveness of technology and thereby pushes us further into growing the technological system, (d) crosses the "adaptability threshhold", i.e. the point at which the PACE of technological development is so rapid that adaptation of our society to such a pace is NO longer possible. In short, we do not have the maturity to handle AI; we are playing with fire. Every person who contributes anything to AI development is responsible for the disasters that AI will bring, and all AI research should be destroyed.

M3L0NM4N 3y ago
This is such a pessimistic view to take that I cannot even begin to describe how you are wrong.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I would love to see your rebuttals, especially since I have never seen any strong arguments in favour of AI being a net benefit to society, and I have thought and read about this at lenght. Of course, I always expect downvotes on my posts here since there is a strong tendency towards loving technology here. But what I find most interesting is that there is absolutely no taking of responsibility of any technological creations. Before you downvote, please just ask yourself the following: is it reasonable to say that all these latest AI developments have no serious risks? And in response to your reply, humanity is in quite a precarious state now, so isn't it expected that a sober analysis of it is rather pessimistic, especially with regard to hyper-advanced technologies?
  - jackstraw14 3y ago
    > But what I find most interesting is that there is absolutely no taking of responsibility of any technological creations. I appreciate your willingness to talk about it, but to be honest it doesn't seem like it matters much what you, or any of us (not singling you out in particular), thinks about it, does it? It probably doesn't even matter who these people are who should take responsibility. This is one genie, like the internet, that probably isn't going back in the bottle anytime soon. I haven't seen any argument against "AI" that's much different than those against "the internet" and "computers" that we've at other times in the last 50 years when tech hit new mind-blowing milestones. It just keeps going regardless, right?
    - lacrimacida 3y ago
      It actually does make a difference. The genie is out of the bottle partially but it depends a lot on what we allow it it be used on. If we sit idly and allow for ingesting all what’s written for instance, including whats currently written and let bros make derivative works for a quick buck then we mostly killed the writer’s incentive to write or publish. If we slow down and not allow ripping one another off it could have the opposite effect and trully lift all the boats at once. There’s a concurent thread about Sarah Silverman suing OpenAI, that’s what Im talking about as well here
      - jackstraw14 3y ago
        > If we sit idly and allow for ingesting all what’s written for instance It's already happened. What do you do now? For decades, it's happened regardless of the robots.txt so you have to assume it's all been ingested by it all, everywhere. What now?
      - Joeri 3y ago
        You can slow things down, but not by more than a few years, because of the gradual democratization of training foundation models. Right now training a model competitive with chatgpt can be done for $150K (microsoft orca 13b). In a few years the cost will be low enough that individuals can train models. At that point regulating it will require draconian dictatorships. I’m also very wary of the copyright angle on this, because just like we don’t prohibit people from learning copyrighted materials in their brains, it feels very wrong to regulate how we train digital brains. I’m ok with forbidding the output of copies of individual existing copyrighted works, but we already have laws on the books for that. I find it downright immoral to prohibit the generation of works “in the style of”. That again reeks like the kind of draconian society I don’t want to live in. People will always be willing to pay for human-made art, just like we pay more for handmade pots, even though machines can make them better, so I think the doomsayers who predict the end of art are flat out wrong. Easy access to mass-generated AI content could be the best thing that happened to true artists, just like chess AI that can beat every human player was the best thing that happened to the chess world. We need labeling laws that show the origin of works so people can choose whether they want artificial or human-made, but please not another extension of the copyright regime to be even more suffocating and hostile of cultural flourishing.
  - ed_mercer 3y ago
    >is it reasonable to say that all these latest AI developments have no serious risks? There are definitely problems today with people abusing ChatGPT for malicious purposes, but given the retardedness of current LLMs I don't think we need to worry about a AI mastermind taking over anytime soon.
  - borissk 3y ago
    If we were a rational civilization we'd stop all scientific research immediately. First there's a good chance the great filter is ahead of us and will be triggered by a technology break-trough. Second with nuclear weapons we got lucky in that it's extremely hard to separate fission capable isotope of uranium from mineral ores; if in the future we invent a powerful weapon that's easy to produce organizations like al-Qaeda will destroy every city on Earth.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      I can't figure out if this is a rebuttal by absurdity or serious?
    - mhandley 3y ago
      The great filter is definitely ahead of us if we stop all scientific research. Just ask the dinosaurs.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I agree with you that we'd stop scientific research immediately, or at least most of it.
maximamas 3y ago
It’s ironic you say: “we are playing with fire.” Playing with fire is, in large part, literally how humans have come to dominate this planet. Why stop now?
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  To turn your metaphor on its head, we aren’t playing with fire when we use it constructively; rather we are very carefully and thoughtfully deploying it, no doubt due to our gradual and deadly lessons with it over time. When we “play” with it (a la fireworks or neglected campfires), it wreaks rampant destruction. Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Counterpoint: "playing with it" is the only way we have to actually master something. "Carefully and thoughtfully deploying it" only comes way after many people first extensively played with it (for any specific "it"), first because of curiosity (i.e. for shits and giggles), then for a quick buck.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Maybe because we're on the verge of being able to create fires which can actually consume the only home we have? Playing with fire is in large part an ego and greed issue. Yes, it allows us to dominate, but at what cost? I'd rather live a more balanced life than a greedy and ego driven life. I may not own the world, but I can be happy and sleep sound at night, and that matters.
  - rebolek 3y ago
    We had nuclear weapons for almost 80 years and the world still hasn't ended. And I think that nuclear weapons are way more dangerous than Markov chains on steroids.
    - 3y ago
carabiner 3y ago
Serious as a heart attack. I hope that we don't have to resort to military force, but it may be the only option: https://futurism.com/ai-expert-bomb-datacenters https://futurism.com/ai-expert-bomb-datacenters

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago

From the post: [Rumors that start to become lawsuits] Some speculations are: - LibGen (4M+ books) - Sci-Hub (80M+ papers) - All of GitHub This is the most funny, but in the end sad aspect. If ChatGPT was indeed trained on pirated content and is able to be(come) such a powerful tool, then the copyright laws should have been abolished yesterday. If ChatGPT was not trained on all these resources out there, then think how much powerful a tool it would be if it were trained, then copyright laws are actively stifling advancement and should have been abolished yesterday.

BelleOfTheBall 3y ago
That is a very dangerous way to approach copyright laws. They are definitely abused by corporations like Disney, infamously so, but abolishing them is absolutely not the answer. Art makers are already struggling en masse, taking away their ability to earn money off their work isn't an answer, especially if it's just to train a predictive text generator.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Counterpoint: there's way too much "art makers", copyright is keeping the quality ceiling down, good content loses monetization game with spam - all while that "predictive text generator" is, for better or worse, pretty much the most magnificent piece of technology invented this century, and - for better or worse - it's likely to become next major shift to economy and life.
  - bergen 3y ago
    How do you believe copyright is keeping the quality down in particular? As I see it, the reason is marketability and trying to conform to standards. Making a new Marvel Movie is sure to have a payoff. Making Parasite MIGHT have a higher payoff, but the risk is way higher. Removing copyright might help to get various more spin-offs and reiterations on previous work, which does increase the scope, but taking the ability for makers to profit from their work in a traditional sense, will bring us closer (back) to a time when commissioned artwork was the main art you saw

arthur_sav 3y ago

Is this how Terminator begins?