2 ms·

My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that

My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that a machine intelligence to be equivalent to humans in every law is curiously never mentioned, except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. Or are we saying that we can't turn off GPT-4 at this point, because following your metaphor, we would be committing murder or abortion? Again, you can't reason using metaphors and inferences and analogies. It's not helpful.

EnergyAmy 3y ago
It's pretty obvious that we should be considering whether or not it's ethical to turn off AI. Even if most people think it's OK right now, that will likely change as these models get more capable, exactly similar to the differing opinions on abortion. > except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. That's just not true. You're ignoring vast amounts of discussion on the topic, particularly the discussions had when Blake Lemoine claimed that LaMDA was sentient. There's no reason to dismiss all that just because you're dead set on assuming everyone involved in AI is up to no good.