4 ms·
This is mostly hypotheticals. I can't argue against hypothetical problems, so all I'm going to say is I'm not convinced this is a danger. I also don't agree th
by sfn42 3y ago
This is mostly hypotheticals. I can't argue against hypothetical problems, so all I'm going to say is I'm not convinced this is a danger.
I also don't agree that helping humans make scientific progress is a danger. We already have the tools to wipe ourselves out, adding more of them doesn't really change much. It might well help us discover ways to improve things, and whatever we discover it's up to us how we use it.
We don't know what the future holds. GPT-4 may be close to the limit of current possibility. It is not given that we will discover significant improvements. Even if we do discover significant theoretical improvements it is not given that it will be feasible with current nor near-future hardware.
I can agree that there exists hypothetical potential for danger, but to put that hypothetical risk higher than real threats is in my view exaggeration.
- ben_w 3y ago> We already have the tools to wipe ourselves out, adding more of them doesn't really change much We do already have the tools, but they're mostly in the hands of people responsible enough to not use them that way, or bound into larger systems that collectively act like that. A friendly and helpful assistant that does exactly what you ask for without ever stopping to ask "why" or to comment "that seems immoral" is absolutely going to put those tools in the hands of people who think genocide is big and clever. The two questions I have are: (1) When does it get to that level? (2) Can we make an AI-based police force to stop that, which isn't a disaster waiting to happen all by itself?