3 ms·

The problem is the same as some of the woke movements. Nobody wants to publicly speak out against AI safety BS because a Twitter mob who has made a career out o

The problem is the same as some of the woke movements. Nobody wants to publicly speak out against AI safety BS because a Twitter mob who has made a career out of it will descend onto them and ruin their career. There is nothing to gain from speaking out against it, but you gain career opportunities by being part of the AI safety BS community. In fact, this has happened with Hinton (I think it was?) when he dared to explain how models aren't inherently biased. Had to publicly apologize for it later. Even ML conferences have AI safety tracks these days. Nobody sane wants to be excluded from opportunities.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Well, I for one am speaking out against it (and against AI in general). I have a blog, Twitter, newsletter, and I even post warnings on my YouTube channel from time to time. I was part of a discussion that led my employer to commit to NOT using generative AI. No Twitter mob is going to stop me. They can descend all they want and pretend to be brave in front of a keyboard and screen. As far as I'm concerned, they're cowards.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "against AI safety" You speak against AI and against AI safety? In what way? Wouldn't be speaking against AI enough? Or would AI safety mean laws to prevent AI existence? Like in the Algebraist? (though it is funny in that book how the powerful use AI when it suits them).
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I speak out against both. I am strongly against AI. But I am also against AI safety in general because I think AI safety is: (1) A false amelioration that cannot prevent the dangers of AI (2) A false promise to people that AI can be made safe (3) A weak on-the-fence position to take of people who think they can have their cake and eat it too.
    - calf 3y ago
      But is it impossible to study AI safety (or "safety") scientifically? What about all the papers like AI watermarking or AI racial bias and so for? Do you argue that academics working on those questions are doing illegitimate science?
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        I don't think the science is illegitimate in the sense that it doesn't follow the scientific method or at least the principles of science or engineering in some form. Nor do I think they have bad intentions. BUT, I do think their work is useless and only serves to better integrate AI into to the system, which is better in the short term but worse in the long term. Therefore, overall, I vehemently disagree with their research and I think it is fundamentally a contribution to the worsening of the earth. I absolutely AGREE with treating all people equally and eliminating racial biases of course. However, TECH companies have a VESTED interest in this sort of thing, which is to integrate as many people as possible into the tech empire. It just so happens that building the tech empire is roughly equivalent to success in modern society, which is why their intentions seem good, but they are only ostensibly good. In reality, they do no good of any kind.
        klibertp 3y ago
        Hmm, I'm intrigued. I looked at your blog - not very close, no time right now, but I feel I would enjoy a more thorough read - and I find, for example, this[1] post to be quite sensible on its surface, even if I may not agree with everything. However, the latter part of the title - "and should be destroyed" - makes me wonder: how exactly could it be possible to put the genie back in the bottle? The only scenario that comes to my mind - happily untainted with any philosophy training - is the one from Dune. The problem with that is that, throughout the series, Dune describes at least four different dystopic world orders, all motivated and cultivated because the AI-based one didn't come to pass (narrowly). In the novel, the only feasible, long-term strategy to avoid being wiped out by the "thinking machines" was either religious fundamentalism or a God-like undying tyrant forcing its vision on everyone. Since we lack the capabilities to create the latter, it seems the former is the only way we can implement it right now. Wouldn't, however, living under the permanent anti-AI jihad also be a dystopic experience? Especially in our case, where the AI has yet to decimate humanity to the brink of extinction. I'm sure you considered this, so if you have a summary of what you think we can still do to stop AI without succumbing to any of the other undesirable outcomes, I'd appreciate a link :) [1] https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/ https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Upvoted because I appreciate your taking a position and if the Twitter mob won't stop you there is no reason to have the HN mob squelch you. That said: I'm fairly aligned with your position in that I believe that technology should be utterly subservient to us and I draw the line at push messages and don't have a smartphone, online assistant or any other crap like that. I'll think for myself and I will allow myself to be interrupted where and when I want it, not when some piece of needy technology believes it is time for me to be distracted. My attention is my most precious commodity and I'll spread it around based on my own preferences. That is also why I've banned advertising from my life. But I recognize that this is a personal decision first and foremost and that there are many other people for whom convenience is a far bigger factor than it is for me. At the same time those people are often wondering why I'm as productive as I am but that's not for me to explain, I lack the tools to tell them - politely - that if they dropped all of the crap in their lives, opened a book or two and learned some more skills that they too could be more productive. I've been accused of being a modern Luddite and that's kind of funny because for forty years or so I think I was solidly positioned at the forefront of the tech scene, right at the bleeding edge and in quite a few cases working to advance that frontier. But now I'm much more aware of the shadow side of all this stuff and that's why I'm very cautious about what parts I allow in and which parts I keep out, even if that means less smooth interaction with those around me who all embrace all this stuff without a second thought. Oh, and maybe lay off the all-caps words.
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    Upvoted because I appreciate your position. In case anyone is wondering, jacquesm is the one who designed & built a robotic sorting mechanism that intelligently distinguishes different types of Lego pieces and separates them quite effectively. The kind of Luddite who hasn't forgotten how much progress can be made when zero hours are spent hunched in the touchscreen pose, and things like that. Anyone who can do 0 hours per day for a decent spell just might find out those zeros really add up. When you have a device that's supposed to give you more freedom to roam it might not really be pulling its weight if you are tethered to it all the time. And things like that.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

Well, I for one am speaking out against it (and against AI in general). I have a blog, Twitter, newsletter, and I even post warnings on my YouTube channel from time to time. I was part of a discussion that led my employer to commit to NOT using generative AI. No Twitter mob is going to stop me. They can descend all they want and pretend to be brave in front of a keyboard and screen. As far as I'm concerned, they're cowards.

KingOfCoders 3y ago
"against AI safety" You speak against AI and against AI safety? In what way? Wouldn't be speaking against AI enough? Or would AI safety mean laws to prevent AI existence? Like in the Algebraist? (though it is funny in that book how the powerful use AI when it suits them).
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I speak out against both. I am strongly against AI. But I am also against AI safety in general because I think AI safety is: (1) A false amelioration that cannot prevent the dangers of AI (2) A false promise to people that AI can be made safe (3) A weak on-the-fence position to take of people who think they can have their cake and eat it too.
  - calf 3y ago
    But is it impossible to study AI safety (or "safety") scientifically? What about all the papers like AI watermarking or AI racial bias and so for? Do you argue that academics working on those questions are doing illegitimate science?
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I don't think the science is illegitimate in the sense that it doesn't follow the scientific method or at least the principles of science or engineering in some form. Nor do I think they have bad intentions. BUT, I do think their work is useless and only serves to better integrate AI into to the system, which is better in the short term but worse in the long term. Therefore, overall, I vehemently disagree with their research and I think it is fundamentally a contribution to the worsening of the earth. I absolutely AGREE with treating all people equally and eliminating racial biases of course. However, TECH companies have a VESTED interest in this sort of thing, which is to integrate as many people as possible into the tech empire. It just so happens that building the tech empire is roughly equivalent to success in modern society, which is why their intentions seem good, but they are only ostensibly good. In reality, they do no good of any kind.
      - klibertp 3y ago
        Hmm, I'm intrigued. I looked at your blog - not very close, no time right now, but I feel I would enjoy a more thorough read - and I find, for example, this[1] post to be quite sensible on its surface, even if I may not agree with everything. However, the latter part of the title - "and should be destroyed" - makes me wonder: how exactly could it be possible to put the genie back in the bottle? The only scenario that comes to my mind - happily untainted with any philosophy training - is the one from Dune. The problem with that is that, throughout the series, Dune describes at least four different dystopic world orders, all motivated and cultivated because the AI-based one didn't come to pass (narrowly). In the novel, the only feasible, long-term strategy to avoid being wiped out by the "thinking machines" was either religious fundamentalism or a God-like undying tyrant forcing its vision on everyone. Since we lack the capabilities to create the latter, it seems the former is the only way we can implement it right now. Wouldn't, however, living under the permanent anti-AI jihad also be a dystopic experience? Especially in our case, where the AI has yet to decimate humanity to the brink of extinction. I'm sure you considered this, so if you have a summary of what you think we can still do to stop AI without succumbing to any of the other undesirable outcomes, I'd appreciate a link :) [1] https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/ https://blog.jpolak.org/2519/
jacquesm 3y ago
Upvoted because I appreciate your taking a position and if the Twitter mob won't stop you there is no reason to have the HN mob squelch you. That said: I'm fairly aligned with your position in that I believe that technology should be utterly subservient to us and I draw the line at push messages and don't have a smartphone, online assistant or any other crap like that. I'll think for myself and I will allow myself to be interrupted where and when I want it, not when some piece of needy technology believes it is time for me to be distracted. My attention is my most precious commodity and I'll spread it around based on my own preferences. That is also why I've banned advertising from my life. But I recognize that this is a personal decision first and foremost and that there are many other people for whom convenience is a far bigger factor than it is for me. At the same time those people are often wondering why I'm as productive as I am but that's not for me to explain, I lack the tools to tell them - politely - that if they dropped all of the crap in their lives, opened a book or two and learned some more skills that they too could be more productive. I've been accused of being a modern Luddite and that's kind of funny because for forty years or so I think I was solidly positioned at the forefront of the tech scene, right at the bleeding edge and in quite a few cases working to advance that frontier. But now I'm much more aware of the shadow side of all this stuff and that's why I'm very cautious about what parts I allow in and which parts I keep out, even if that means less smooth interaction with those around me who all embrace all this stuff without a second thought. Oh, and maybe lay off the all-caps words.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  Upvoted because I appreciate your position. In case anyone is wondering, jacquesm is the one who designed & built a robotic sorting mechanism that intelligently distinguishes different types of Lego pieces and separates them quite effectively. The kind of Luddite who hasn't forgotten how much progress can be made when zero hours are spent hunched in the touchscreen pose, and things like that. Anyone who can do 0 hours per day for a decent spell just might find out those zeros really add up. When you have a device that's supposed to give you more freedom to roam it might not really be pulling its weight if you are tethered to it all the time. And things like that.