3 ms·
Investigate it, sure. Invest just as many resources into it though? I'm not saying the risk is completely zero, it's just an irrelevant and tiny quantity compar
by __loam 3y ago
Investigate it, sure. Invest just as many resources into it though? I'm not saying the risk is completely zero, it's just an irrelevant and tiny quantity compared the actual problems this stuff is already causing. Rogue waves sinking massive shipping vessels in the middle of the ocean is a non-zero risk for example, but the probability is so low that it's not really a consideration for most shipping companies. Do you guys know how ai is going to become self aware? Or are we assuming that throwing enough compute at the problem will somehow lead to the singularity just because? That is, frankly, magical thinking and not really worth thinking about when compared to the absolutely massive abuses of the companies building these things.
- persnickety 3y agoI agree that resource allocation is hard, but we're talking unknown unknowns here. There's precedent here that's being extrapolated: approximately no one expected ChatGPT ten years ago. We don't know whether there are stepwise improvements at any point in the future, so it's extremely hard to estimate the risk. Estimating it as "irrelevant" might end up just as accurate as predicting in 2000 that computers could not reach chatgpt levels of language mastery. It doesn't require an assumption, just allowing the possibility that a similar breakthrough in computing power and techniques might happen. In comparison, pretty much everyone (?) agrees about "abuses by the companies building those things", so there's no danger of that getting left neglected.