3 ms·

> in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Dogs also work on ideas and change their behaviour, and their behaviour is much down to their traini

> in that it can work with ideas and change it's behavior. Dogs also work on ideas and change their behaviour, and their behaviour is much down to their training. But unlike ai they posses intelligence and can indeed, occasionally, go rogue. But AI is an object, it doesn't think, it doesn't create stuff, it is just a piece of software that does what it's told - well with plenty of errors, since it's not deterministic - therefore it's up to whoever controls it to determine how it behaves. Shifting the blame away with all sorts of looney stories meant to impress non technical people is amusing to a point, but after that point is dangerous.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Part of the reason control theory exists is because it turns out that we can't take it as given that just because we built something, we can remain in control of it. The consequences can be quite severe. For example a nuclear reactor can melt down and make a good portion of a country uninhabitable, even though nobody in the control room, nor anywhere up the chain of command, desired that outcome. No terrorism necessary. It can even reach a state in its state-space where a meltdown does not seem imminent and yet no further action can prevent such an outcome. Such systems deserve to be treated with a great deal more respect than just assuming that they aren't capable of unbounded harm as long as nobody commands it of them. Guaranteeing their safety takes a great deal of work. This lesson is paid for in blood, and learned time and again by each discipline, but it's one that the software field has yet to really grapple with.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  I absolutely agree with you. Just like with nuclear reactors the responsibility lies with the people that build and operate them, not with the reactor itself. I take issue with people that are prepping to shift the blame on the reactor, or in this case the ai, just to absolve themselves. They are already fighting tooth and nail for the right to steal our intellectual property, because apparently ai can think on its own (it wouldn't need our data if it learned, it could read a book and "know" the programming language, as we all do), and now they are warming up senile politicians to the idea that if something has gone wrong it was due to the ai having a mind on its own. Well, it doesn't. And in the wrong hands this tool is indeed dangerous, and we already see the dangers in action. But it's the people that are guitly of its actions.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    I don't think the people most worried about AI as an existential threat are very concerned about assigning blame to the AI. They are just concerned about the damage, full-stop. They are worried about AI companies making continuing progress in capabilities research without ensuring adequate safeguards exist alongside. It would be criminally irresponsible to build a nuclear reactor without very carefully considered safeguards, automatic shutdowns, failsafe fire extinguishers, and numerous other redundancies, independently verified by licensed engineers. Simply putting that nuclear plant in the hands of well-meaning operators is not enough. I haven't seen any AI companies acting with that standard of care. They seem to instead be caught up in a breakneck race to release products, attract investment, and maintain dominance, regardless of what their PR departments say. And so far the regulators have mostly been happy to leave it to them to figure out what safeguards are sufficient. That said, it certainly could be the case that companies like OpenAI are pretending to worry about this issue in order to gain regulatory capture, or as you say, to somehow absolve themselves from responsibility for the behavior of the systems they create. (As if that were possible!). It certainly seems likely that they would co-opt the legitimate concerns of third parties for their own benefit. And perhaps rocketry companies also exaggerate the existential risk of asteroids. But while we can question the motives of certain actors, the existential threat may exist all the same.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

Part of the reason control theory exists is because it turns out that we can't take it as given that just because we built something, we can remain in control of it. The consequences can be quite severe. For example a nuclear reactor can melt down and make a good portion of a country uninhabitable, even though nobody in the control room, nor anywhere up the chain of command, desired that outcome. No terrorism necessary. It can even reach a state in its state-space where a meltdown does not seem imminent and yet no further action can prevent such an outcome. Such systems deserve to be treated with a great deal more respect than just assuming that they aren't capable of unbounded harm as long as nobody commands it of them. Guaranteeing their safety takes a great deal of work. This lesson is paid for in blood, and learned time and again by each discipline, but it's one that the software field has yet to really grapple with.

gumballindie 3y ago
I absolutely agree with you. Just like with nuclear reactors the responsibility lies with the people that build and operate them, not with the reactor itself. I take issue with people that are prepping to shift the blame on the reactor, or in this case the ai, just to absolve themselves. They are already fighting tooth and nail for the right to steal our intellectual property, because apparently ai can think on its own (it wouldn't need our data if it learned, it could read a book and "know" the programming language, as we all do), and now they are warming up senile politicians to the idea that if something has gone wrong it was due to the ai having a mind on its own. Well, it doesn't. And in the wrong hands this tool is indeed dangerous, and we already see the dangers in action. But it's the people that are guitly of its actions.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I don't think the people most worried about AI as an existential threat are very concerned about assigning blame to the AI. They are just concerned about the damage, full-stop. They are worried about AI companies making continuing progress in capabilities research without ensuring adequate safeguards exist alongside. It would be criminally irresponsible to build a nuclear reactor without very carefully considered safeguards, automatic shutdowns, failsafe fire extinguishers, and numerous other redundancies, independently verified by licensed engineers. Simply putting that nuclear plant in the hands of well-meaning operators is not enough. I haven't seen any AI companies acting with that standard of care. They seem to instead be caught up in a breakneck race to release products, attract investment, and maintain dominance, regardless of what their PR departments say. And so far the regulators have mostly been happy to leave it to them to figure out what safeguards are sufficient. That said, it certainly could be the case that companies like OpenAI are pretending to worry about this issue in order to gain regulatory capture, or as you say, to somehow absolve themselves from responsibility for the behavior of the systems they create. (As if that were possible!). It certainly seems likely that they would co-opt the legitimate concerns of third parties for their own benefit. And perhaps rocketry companies also exaggerate the existential risk of asteroids. But while we can question the motives of certain actors, the existential threat may exist all the same.