4 ms·

> but at least some of the low level people working for OpenAI seemed to think the risk is worth taking seriously Everyone has an opinion, but the experts seem

> but at least some of the low level people working for OpenAI seemed to think the risk is worth taking seriously Everyone has an opinion, but the experts seem strangely silent on this matter. I mean experts in human risk, not experts in AI. The latter love to ramble on, but are unlikely to know anything about social and humanitarian consequences – at least no more than the stock boy at Walmart. Dedicating one's life to becoming an expert in AI doesn't leave much time to become an expert in anything else. There is only so much time in the day.

danenania 3y ago
Conversely, why should we expect an expert in "human risk" with no understanding of AI to have anything productive to add to the conversation? We should be looking for people who are well-grounded in both areas, if any exist.
- randomdata 3y ago
  What additional information would understanding AI actually bring to the table? Worst case you just assume the AI can become human-like. Certainly all the vocal AI experts can come up with is things that humans already do to each other already, only noting that AI enables it at larger scale. Clearly there is no benefit in understanding the AI technology with respect to this matter when the only thing you can point to is scale. The concept of scalability doesn't require an understanding of AI.
  - danenania 3y ago
    That's like saying that you can regulate nuclear materials without input from nuclear physicists or regulate high risk virology without input from virologists. The goal is (or should be) to determine how we can get the benefits of the new technology (nuclear energy, vaccines, AI productivity boom) while minimizing civilizational risk (nuclear war/terrorism, bioweapons/man-made pandemics, anti-human AI applications). There's no way this can be achieved if you don't understand the actual capabilities or trajectory of the technology. You will either over-regulate and throw out the baby with the bathwater, stopping innovation completely or ensuring it only happens under governments that don't care about human rights, or you will miss massive areas of risk because you don't know how the new technology works, what it's capable of, or where it's heading.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Experts are not lawmakers. We aren't looking for them to craft regulation, we're looking to hear from them about the various realistic scenarios that could play out. But we're not hearing anything. ...probably because there isn't much to hear. Like, Hinton's big warning is that AI will be used to steal identities. What does that tell us? We already know that identity isn't reliable. We've known that for centuries. Realistically, we've likely known that throughout the entirety of human existence. AI doesn't change anything on that front.
      - danenania 3y ago
        I guess my experience is different. I've heard plenty about realistic scenarios. It's out there if you look for it, or even if you just spend time thinking it through. Identity theft is far from the biggest danger even with current capabilities. Though to your point, I think part of the issue is that people who study this stuff are often hesitant to give too much detail in public because they don't want to give ideas to potentially nefarious actors before any protections are in place.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > I've heard plenty about realistic scenarios. Of course. Everyone has an opinion. Some of those opinions will end up be quite realistic, even if just by random chance. You don't have to be an expert to come up with right ideas sometimes. Hinton's vision of AI being used to steal identities is quite realistic. But that doesn't make him an expert. His opinion carries no more weight than any other random hobo on the street. > I think part of the issue is that people who study this stuff are often hesitant to give too much detail in public because they don't want to give ideas to potentially nefarious actors Is there no realistic scenario where the outcome is positive? Surely they could speak to that, at least. What if, say, AI progressed us to post-scarcity? Many apparent experts believe post-scarcity will lead us away from a lot of the nefarious activity you speak of.
        danenania 3y ago
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Worst case you can expect AI to become alien, becoming human like is probably one of the better outcomes. We as humans only have human intelligence to reference what intelligence is, and in doing so we commonly cut off other branches of non human intelligence in our thinking. Human intelligence has increased greatly as our sensor systems have increased their ability to gather data and 'dumb' it down to our innate senses. Now imagine an intelligence that doesn't need the data type conversion? Imagine a global network of sensors feeding a distributed hivemind. Imagine wireless signals just being another kind of sight or hearing.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      No, if one can conceive of such aliens, that would be the best case. The worst case is falling back to the understanding of the human, for the reasons you describe. However, as you point out, one does not need to have any understanding of AI to conceive of what AI can become as natural creatures can theoretically evolve into the same thing. Experts will have already been thinking about what problems might arise if alien life came emerged earth long before AI even existed. AI doesn't change anything.

danenania 3y ago

Conversely, why should we expect an expert in "human risk" with no understanding of AI to have anything productive to add to the conversation? We should be looking for people who are well-grounded in both areas, if any exist.

randomdata 3y ago
What additional information would understanding AI actually bring to the table? Worst case you just assume the AI can become human-like. Certainly all the vocal AI experts can come up with is things that humans already do to each other already, only noting that AI enables it at larger scale. Clearly there is no benefit in understanding the AI technology with respect to this matter when the only thing you can point to is scale. The concept of scalability doesn't require an understanding of AI.
- danenania 3y ago
  That's like saying that you can regulate nuclear materials without input from nuclear physicists or regulate high risk virology without input from virologists. The goal is (or should be) to determine how we can get the benefits of the new technology (nuclear energy, vaccines, AI productivity boom) while minimizing civilizational risk (nuclear war/terrorism, bioweapons/man-made pandemics, anti-human AI applications). There's no way this can be achieved if you don't understand the actual capabilities or trajectory of the technology. You will either over-regulate and throw out the baby with the bathwater, stopping innovation completely or ensuring it only happens under governments that don't care about human rights, or you will miss massive areas of risk because you don't know how the new technology works, what it's capable of, or where it's heading.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Experts are not lawmakers. We aren't looking for them to craft regulation, we're looking to hear from them about the various realistic scenarios that could play out. But we're not hearing anything. ...probably because there isn't much to hear. Like, Hinton's big warning is that AI will be used to steal identities. What does that tell us? We already know that identity isn't reliable. We've known that for centuries. Realistically, we've likely known that throughout the entirety of human existence. AI doesn't change anything on that front.
    - danenania 3y ago
      I guess my experience is different. I've heard plenty about realistic scenarios. It's out there if you look for it, or even if you just spend time thinking it through. Identity theft is far from the biggest danger even with current capabilities. Though to your point, I think part of the issue is that people who study this stuff are often hesitant to give too much detail in public because they don't want to give ideas to potentially nefarious actors before any protections are in place.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > I've heard plenty about realistic scenarios. Of course. Everyone has an opinion. Some of those opinions will end up be quite realistic, even if just by random chance. You don't have to be an expert to come up with right ideas sometimes. Hinton's vision of AI being used to steal identities is quite realistic. But that doesn't make him an expert. His opinion carries no more weight than any other random hobo on the street. > I think part of the issue is that people who study this stuff are often hesitant to give too much detail in public because they don't want to give ideas to potentially nefarious actors Is there no realistic scenario where the outcome is positive? Surely they could speak to that, at least. What if, say, AI progressed us to post-scarcity? Many apparent experts believe post-scarcity will lead us away from a lot of the nefarious activity you speak of.
        danenania 3y ago
- pixl97 3y ago
  Worst case you can expect AI to become alien, becoming human like is probably one of the better outcomes. We as humans only have human intelligence to reference what intelligence is, and in doing so we commonly cut off other branches of non human intelligence in our thinking. Human intelligence has increased greatly as our sensor systems have increased their ability to gather data and 'dumb' it down to our innate senses. Now imagine an intelligence that doesn't need the data type conversion? Imagine a global network of sensors feeding a distributed hivemind. Imagine wireless signals just being another kind of sight or hearing.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    No, if one can conceive of such aliens, that would be the best case. The worst case is falling back to the understanding of the human, for the reasons you describe. However, as you point out, one does not need to have any understanding of AI to conceive of what AI can become as natural creatures can theoretically evolve into the same thing. Experts will have already been thinking about what problems might arise if alien life came emerged earth long before AI even existed. AI doesn't change anything.