4 ms·

This seems like a step in the dangerous direction.

by ImHereToVote 3y ago

faktory 3y ago
Why?
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Because up till now many people that discount AI threats base that discount on a few assumptions like 'its just a parrot', 'it doesn't have any drives', 'it doesn't really understand', 'it isn't conscious', etc... ad-Infinium. But the more different technology is plugged together to start resembling a brain, like a visual cortex, a speech center, motor controls, etc... At some point the distinction between carbon based life and silicon becomes meaningless vanishes. All the arguments or proofs that humans are conscious would equally prove AI is conscious. Or that neither truly are. Proving an AI is not conscious would also prove humans aren't. And of course, Terminators.
valine 3y ago
It’ll be ok. The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist. The near term risks we face from AI are constrained to the realms of spam and privacy. World ending super-bots are science fiction.
- danielbln 3y ago
  Before superintelligence scifi stuff we'll probably get some sort of superworm. Some rogue autonomous agent network that is improving itself via some framework like SKILL[1] going around 0-day'ing systems left and right and wreaking havoc. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11944 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11944
  - naasking 3y ago
    WormGPT already exists. These will only become more dangerous as the tech evolves.
- naasking 3y ago
  > It’ll be ok. The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist. Nobody's worried about the tech that exists. > The near term risks we face from AI are constrained to the realms of spam and privacy. Define "near term". > World ending super-bots are science fiction. Science fiction has become science fact before. Where's the knockdown argument that won't happen in this case?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - valine 3y ago
    Its not feasible to worry about the implications of every imaginary technology. Nuclear chain reactions were first theorized to exist a decade before the first bomb dropped. Should scientists have stopped exploring quantum mechanics in the 30s? Fear of the unknown shouldn’t be allowed to stop scientific progress. We can deal with the implications of dangerous AI if and when it becomes a problem.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      It is absolutely feasible. The zealot religion of seeking scientific "progress" at all costs is not the only choice humanity has.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - piva00 3y ago
      > We can deal with the implications of dangerous AI if and when it becomes a problem. What makes you assume that? We haven't been able yet to deal with the repercussions of globalised social media, we don't even completely understand its impacts. Or dealt with the impact of climate change. AI seems like a much more encompassing and transformative technology than social media, what makes you assume we will be able to deal with its problems in a timely fashion when they inevitably occur? We might as well not be able to, and as usual, unintended consequences will follow. > Fear of the unknown shouldn’t be allowed to stop scientific progress. Scientific progress at any cost while being irresponsible about major consequences of it shouldn't be allowed either, it needs to be a balancing act, just pushing forward without even assessing the risks is a stupid game.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Blind denial. No argument or evidence presented, merely bold statements made with the expectation they be taken without question. Flying humans was science fiction 120 years ago. A single bomb able to destroy an entire city was science fiction 80 years ago. A machine that can complete more mathematical calculations in one minute than all human manual computation in history was science fiction 60 years ago. EUV photolithography capable of creating molecule-sized transistors was science fiction 30 years ago. A computer that can create visual art and talk to you in plain English was science fiction 2 years ago. A computer that can clone your voice and mannerisms was science fiction 1 year ago. Science fiction has a way of becoming non-fiction, often within the span of a generation or less.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  >> "The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist" What? Did you not see the Netflix documentary on AI for military use? They literally have AI's that can beat fighter pilots in dog fighting. Just because it isn't walking around having coffee and chatting you up, doesn't mean it isn't already very advanced and deadly.
  - valine 3y ago
    Dog fighting AI isn’t going to end the world. When people talk about the “risks” associated with AI they’re talking about an AI that spirals out of control and destroys civilization. Something something infinite paper clip optimizer. It’s scifi themed end-times cosplay.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I get that. But the post was just saying it seems 'dangerous'. It is already 'dangerous'. Yes, it will probably become even 'more dangerous'. I'd disagree that many people agree on common definitions of risk. Some people think autonomous drones that can beat humans in a dogfight is already too far, others are holding out for some paper clip optimizers before getting worried. You included 'world ending' as the definition of risk, others have lower bar than that.
sebzim4500 3y ago
I am also concerned about existential threats from AI, but part of the problem is that I have no idea which research directions help and which ones hurt.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  AI safety is a field of its own. https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/ai-safety-researcher/ https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/ai-safety-researcher/

This seems like a step in the dangerous direction.

faktory 3y ago

Why?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Because up till now many people that discount AI threats base that discount on a few assumptions like 'its just a parrot', 'it doesn't have any drives', 'it doesn't really understand', 'it isn't conscious', etc... ad-Infinium. But the more different technology is plugged together to start resembling a brain, like a visual cortex, a speech center, motor controls, etc... At some point the distinction between carbon based life and silicon becomes meaningless vanishes. All the arguments or proofs that humans are conscious would equally prove AI is conscious. Or that neither truly are. Proving an AI is not conscious would also prove humans aren't. And of course, Terminators.

valine 3y ago

It’ll be ok. The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist. The near term risks we face from AI are constrained to the realms of spam and privacy. World ending super-bots are science fiction.

danielbln 3y ago
Before superintelligence scifi stuff we'll probably get some sort of superworm. Some rogue autonomous agent network that is improving itself via some framework like SKILL[1] going around 0-day'ing systems left and right and wreaking havoc. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11944 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11944
- naasking 3y ago
  WormGPT already exists. These will only become more dangerous as the tech evolves.
naasking 3y ago
> It’ll be ok. The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist. Nobody's worried about the tech that exists. > The near term risks we face from AI are constrained to the realms of spam and privacy. Define "near term". > World ending super-bots are science fiction. Science fiction has become science fact before. Where's the knockdown argument that won't happen in this case?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- valine 3y ago
  Its not feasible to worry about the implications of every imaginary technology. Nuclear chain reactions were first theorized to exist a decade before the first bomb dropped. Should scientists have stopped exploring quantum mechanics in the 30s? Fear of the unknown shouldn’t be allowed to stop scientific progress. We can deal with the implications of dangerous AI if and when it becomes a problem.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    It is absolutely feasible. The zealot religion of seeking scientific "progress" at all costs is not the only choice humanity has.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - piva00 3y ago
    > We can deal with the implications of dangerous AI if and when it becomes a problem. What makes you assume that? We haven't been able yet to deal with the repercussions of globalised social media, we don't even completely understand its impacts. Or dealt with the impact of climate change. AI seems like a much more encompassing and transformative technology than social media, what makes you assume we will be able to deal with its problems in a timely fashion when they inevitably occur? We might as well not be able to, and as usual, unintended consequences will follow. > Fear of the unknown shouldn’t be allowed to stop scientific progress. Scientific progress at any cost while being irresponsible about major consequences of it shouldn't be allowed either, it needs to be a balancing act, just pushing forward without even assessing the risks is a stupid game.
flangola7 3y ago
Blind denial. No argument or evidence presented, merely bold statements made with the expectation they be taken without question. Flying humans was science fiction 120 years ago. A single bomb able to destroy an entire city was science fiction 80 years ago. A machine that can complete more mathematical calculations in one minute than all human manual computation in history was science fiction 60 years ago. EUV photolithography capable of creating molecule-sized transistors was science fiction 30 years ago. A computer that can create visual art and talk to you in plain English was science fiction 2 years ago. A computer that can clone your voice and mannerisms was science fiction 1 year ago. Science fiction has a way of becoming non-fiction, often within the span of a generation or less.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>> "The technology for “dangerous” AI doesn’t actually exist" What? Did you not see the Netflix documentary on AI for military use? They literally have AI's that can beat fighter pilots in dog fighting. Just because it isn't walking around having coffee and chatting you up, doesn't mean it isn't already very advanced and deadly.
- valine 3y ago
  Dog fighting AI isn’t going to end the world. When people talk about the “risks” associated with AI they’re talking about an AI that spirals out of control and destroys civilization. Something something infinite paper clip optimizer. It’s scifi themed end-times cosplay.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I get that. But the post was just saying it seems 'dangerous'. It is already 'dangerous'. Yes, it will probably become even 'more dangerous'. I'd disagree that many people agree on common definitions of risk. Some people think autonomous drones that can beat humans in a dogfight is already too far, others are holding out for some paper clip optimizers before getting worried. You included 'world ending' as the definition of risk, others have lower bar than that.

sebzim4500 3y ago

I am also concerned about existential threats from AI, but part of the problem is that I have no idea which research directions help and which ones hurt.

ImHereToVote 3y ago
AI safety is a field of its own. https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/ai-safety-researcher/ https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/ai-safety-researcher/