3 ms·

True humans have been remarkably ignorant throughout our short history. Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting

True humans have been remarkably ignorant throughout our short history. Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting other people on purpose. Take from that what you will. Give this essay a read if youre interested in good faith arguments about the danger of AI at the current state of development. https://1a3orn.com/sub/essays-propaganda-or-science.html https://1a3orn.com/sub/essays-propaganda-or-science.html Maybe together as a species we can avoid hellish cyberpunk dystopias brought on by regulatory capture of the most powerful technology created by humans thusfar. I can only hope.

cubefox 3y ago
I know this piece. Here is a better article by a top biologist and CRISPR pioneer: https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520 https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520 But anyway, that's just human terrorists using future AIs to build biological weapons. But the much greater danger is superintelligent AI causing human extinction by itself.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it but I cannot see referencing a bunch of tweets from a self-proclaimed expert as in any sense good faith. I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk but you failed to provide any interesting ideas. So I wont engage with what from my perspective is fearmongering for the benefit of malicious corporations. I still dont see any studies with control groups and reproduceable experimental procedures saying that any AI agent is in any way more useful to a 'terrorist' than unrestricted access to the internet.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper. > self-proclaimed expert Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not. > I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk I just responded to your article about bioterrorism, which was not about x-risk. Arguments about x-risk were made elsewhere, but I'm sure you would dismiss them because they don't contain studies with control groups.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it for yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read the article that you claimed to read but unfortunately good faith arguments around this seem impossible to have with the alarmist crowd.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        No. I mean the paper mentioned in the Twitter thread you didn't read. Here is the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        So yes the paper that was already discredited in the essay I posted that you didn't read ------------------ "While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"." Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science
famouswaffles 3y ago
>Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting other people on purpose. Take from that what you will. It doesn't matter what "most folks" go about doing. If anything it makes things all the scarier. All this destruction we've caused to so many other species and we weren't even trying.

cubefox 3y ago

I know this piece. Here is a better article by a top biologist and CRISPR pioneer: https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520 https://nitter.net/kesvelt/status/1720440451059335520 But anyway, that's just human terrorists using future AIs to build biological weapons. But the much greater danger is superintelligent AI causing human extinction by itself.

MeImCounting 3y ago
That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it but I cannot see referencing a bunch of tweets from a self-proclaimed expert as in any sense good faith. I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk but you failed to provide any interesting ideas. So I wont engage with what from my perspective is fearmongering for the benefit of malicious corporations. I still dont see any studies with control groups and reproduceable experimental procedures saying that any AI agent is in any way more useful to a 'terrorist' than unrestricted access to the internet.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > That is not an article that is a series of short-form tweets. If it was an actual article I would absolutely read it So you didn't even read the tweets? They contain the link to a paper. > self-proclaimed expert Esvelt is absolutely a recognized expert on biotechnology. The authors of the article you linked to are not. > I asked if you had any novel ideas about how "superintelligent AI" gives a valid x-risk I just responded to your article about bioterrorism, which was not about x-risk. Arguments about x-risk were made elsewhere, but I'm sure you would dismiss them because they don't contain studies with control groups.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    Oh you mean the paper that was discredited in the link I already shared? I am not going to copy and paste the argument from the link I shared, you can read it for yourself. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read the article that you claimed to read but unfortunately good faith arguments around this seem impossible to have with the alarmist crowd.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      No. I mean the paper mentioned in the Twitter thread you didn't read. Here is the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233 https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18233
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        So yes the paper that was already discredited in the essay I posted that you didn't read ------------------ "While I was writing this, an extra paper game out on the same topic as the "Dual-use biotechnology" paper, with the fun title "Will releasing the weights of future large language models grant widespread access to pandemic agents?"." Maybe this is a totally different paper with exactly the same name but if not, I am not really interested in reading a paper that is unrepeatable and doesn't use control groups because that isnt science

famouswaffles 3y ago

>Though you might notice though that most folks dont go around abusing animals or hurting other people on purpose. Take from that what you will. It doesn't matter what "most folks" go about doing. If anything it makes things all the scarier. All this destruction we've caused to so many other species and we weren't even trying.