4 ms·
They are a small subset of the large number of people that signed onto a very short open letter, stating: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be
by lucubratory 3y ago
They are a small subset of the large number of people that signed onto a very short open letter, stating:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."
I only listed the machine learning researchers who are famous or have significant achievements in AI research or engineering in my estimation (not all of them, full list of signatories at https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk), because the comment I was responding to claimed that anyone who knew this subject was not concerned about the safety of AI systems and this list repudiates that as laughably inaccurate. There are many other people who signed onto that letter, but the commenter I responded to presumably doesn't care about their opinions because they're not experts specifically on building these systems or researching the science behind them.
"Effective Altruism" is a dumb social club that at best makes people who would do good things anyway think about that in really unhealthy ways (e.g. thinking about how many lives you have or haven't saved every single day), and at worst provides ideological cover to some truly odious views (e.g. the persistent presence of eugenicists who don't get repudiated by other EA people). I don't like them, and I think all the "value cone" crap is bloviating, worse than useless for informing our actual decisions and anti-convincing to people who aren't bought into their STEM Sierra Club shtick.
They don't have a monopoly on being concerned about the safety of artificially intelligent systems, or on being concerned that the development of such systems has a non-zero chance of causing the extinction of humanity. We should take that possibility seriously and make sure it's not going to happen or we at least have a good idea of the exact risks before we build one or engage in research projects or engineering that could accidentally create an artifact which lead to building one.
- moron4hire 3y ago"AI could kill off humanity" is... perhaps the most-remote, most-boring, most-distracting outcome to discuss in AI safety. GPTs have no chance of becoming an extinction-threat level AI. Intelligence is more than just spitting out words when an answer is demanded (and the folks who are saying GPTs are as "intelligent " as some people make me really worry what those folk must think the role of other people is in their lives). Putting a fancy chatter bot in an open loop isn't going to suddenly create a goal-seeking paperclip optimizer. But there is real harm already being done to people by corporations and governments using AI tools. Yet somehow that doesn't ever come up in the "AI Safety" discussion. Facial recognition getting the wrong person sent to prison. Bad medical advice. Insurance policy denials. Where are the calls from "concerned AI researchers" for slowing down biometric data collection? And if they are so concerned, why are they so busy pouring gasoline on the fire?