5 ms·

Please enlighten me. How do you know that?

by bl0rg 3y ago

kome 3y ago
AI is just a tool; there is ultimately nothing special about it—it simply makes our lives a bit easier. As with any tool, it can be used for good or evil, and it's very hard to separate the two. In fact, the distinction is often arbitrary and, ultimately, useless. The main problem arises when a technology is proprietary, benefiting only a portion of the people. This is literally the only present (and real) problem with AI; all the rest is just scaremongering. AI is indeed powerful, but if it's controlled by a tiny elite instead of being accessible to everybody, problems and risks arise. The same is true for every piece of technology.
- blagie 3y ago
  Let me give a short list of technologies I wouldn't want accessible to everybody: - Thermonuclear warheads - Designer biological viruses and bacteria - Tools to remotely compromise / brick all computers in the world ... and so on. We don't really know where AI is on the danger scale, and if it's one of the scarier corners, we might not know before it's too late. What this episode did reveal is that whatever checks-and-balances OpenAI has in place are not adequate. It almost gave it's whole business to Microsoft. The board accused the CEO of being less than candid, while it itself was less than candid. OpenAI seriously needs serious, enforceable frameworks for things like transparent governance. The level of opacity here is not okay. At this level, we should all know what's happening inside (whether or not we agree that models can be dangerous, or have access to those models).
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    The first two, at least, are already within reach of anyone with sufficient budget. I doubt that there's any entity that's rich enough and wants nukes that doesn't already have them. Even international pariahs like North Korea have them. AFA the second one goes, high school kids are doing genetic engineering in class these days. There's nothing in principle that distinguishes what they do (e.g., inducing resistance to an antibiotic, because that's easy to test) from something extremely nasty (e.g., making it resistant to all known antibiotics).
    - blagie 3y ago
      Nukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. The prevalence of genetic engineering is new, is a species-threatening issue. Unless we figure out how to bring these sorts of superweapons under control, we will be extinct as a species within our children's lifetime.
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        > Nukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. I didn't say "anyone". I said "anyone who's rich enough", which excludes virtually all "teen suicides" and "school shootings". > Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. I disagree. Strongly. If there are people willing to sell nuclear technology to the likes of Kim Jong Un, there are people willing to sell it to the Walton family heirs.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  There is something special about current-day AI and absolutely something special about Q if the claims are true. > The main problem arises when a technology is proprietary, benefiting only a portion of the people. This is literally the only present (and real) problem with AI; all the rest is just scaremongering. This is just silly, akin to claiming bottled human knowledge and intelligence can't be used to commit huge harm at scale (or atrocities) by randoms. Just the other day we had idiots from 4chan hacking nuclear personnel records and will probably ultimately dox them for the lulz. Imagine how much more effective these adult children (or just actual children) would be at causing actual harm and chaos if they had expertise bottled in the form of AI. And yes, it's also a problem if the elite have it in their hands. That doesn't mean it's not a problem if it's available to society at large.
- specialist 3y ago
  Yes and: Technological advances cause social disruption, with winners and losers. I've adopted author Ted Chiang's viewpoint, paraphrasing: Concerns about AI are really concerns about unconstrained capitalism.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    That sounds nice and comforting but it's not true. It's also concerns about enabling shitty (but stupid or ignorant) people to cause harm at scale. Enabling hackers to disrupt essential institutions, enabling warmongers to build WMDs, and yes enabling companies and governments to push down with the boot HARD.
serf 3y ago
if I have an answer-box that tells me the answers to whatever I want to hear, i'd like to be able to vet whether or not it has biases that were not honestly disclosed. that is to say that if I bought an Amerurissan made answer-box I would expect that it gives me unbiased answers that were becoming of an answer-box, but if I was unable to know how it worked then the only way that I would be able to determine whether or not the Amerurissan answer-box was giving pro-Amerurissan advice for its' creators own benefit would be through statistical analysis and long-term effort. If were making the case for making tools do all the work in the world, it's better that the people stay firmly connected to how and why those tools are being made, rather than trusting a singular ideology to get it right the first time for all of humanity.

Please enlighten me. How do you know that?

by bl0rg 3y ago

Please enlighten me. How do you know that?

kome 3y ago

AI is just a tool; there is ultimately nothing special about it—it simply makes our lives a bit easier. As with any tool, it can be used for good or evil, and it's very hard to separate the two. In fact, the distinction is often arbitrary and, ultimately, useless. The main problem arises when a technology is proprietary, benefiting only a portion of the people. This is literally the only present (and real) problem with AI; all the rest is just scaremongering. AI is indeed powerful, but if it's controlled by a tiny elite instead of being accessible to everybody, problems and risks arise. The same is true for every piece of technology.

blagie 3y ago
Let me give a short list of technologies I wouldn't want accessible to everybody: - Thermonuclear warheads - Designer biological viruses and bacteria - Tools to remotely compromise / brick all computers in the world ... and so on. We don't really know where AI is on the danger scale, and if it's one of the scarier corners, we might not know before it's too late. What this episode did reveal is that whatever checks-and-balances OpenAI has in place are not adequate. It almost gave it's whole business to Microsoft. The board accused the CEO of being less than candid, while it itself was less than candid. OpenAI seriously needs serious, enforceable frameworks for things like transparent governance. The level of opacity here is not okay. At this level, we should all know what's happening inside (whether or not we agree that models can be dangerous, or have access to those models).
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  The first two, at least, are already within reach of anyone with sufficient budget. I doubt that there's any entity that's rich enough and wants nukes that doesn't already have them. Even international pariahs like North Korea have them. AFA the second one goes, high school kids are doing genetic engineering in class these days. There's nothing in principle that distinguishes what they do (e.g., inducing resistance to an antibiotic, because that's easy to test) from something extremely nasty (e.g., making it resistant to all known antibiotics).
  - blagie 3y ago
    Nukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. The prevalence of genetic engineering is new, is a species-threatening issue. Unless we figure out how to bring these sorts of superweapons under control, we will be extinct as a species within our children's lifetime.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      > Nukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. I didn't say "anyone". I said "anyone who's rich enough", which excludes virtually all "teen suicides" and "school shootings". > Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. I disagree. Strongly. If there are people willing to sell nuclear technology to the likes of Kim Jong Un, there are people willing to sell it to the Walton family heirs.
DangitBobby 3y ago
There is something special about current-day AI and absolutely something special about Q if the claims are true. > The main problem arises when a technology is proprietary, benefiting only a portion of the people. This is literally the only present (and real) problem with AI; all the rest is just scaremongering. This is just silly, akin to claiming bottled human knowledge and intelligence can't be used to commit huge harm at scale (or atrocities) by randoms. Just the other day we had idiots from 4chan hacking nuclear personnel records and will probably ultimately dox them for the lulz. Imagine how much more effective these adult children (or just actual children) would be at causing actual harm and chaos if they had expertise bottled in the form of AI. And yes, it's also a problem if the elite have it in their hands. That doesn't mean it's not a problem if it's available to society at large.
specialist 3y ago
Yes and: Technological advances cause social disruption, with winners and losers. I've adopted author Ted Chiang's viewpoint, paraphrasing: Concerns about AI are really concerns about unconstrained capitalism.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  That sounds nice and comforting but it's not true. It's also concerns about enabling shitty (but stupid or ignorant) people to cause harm at scale. Enabling hackers to disrupt essential institutions, enabling warmongers to build WMDs, and yes enabling companies and governments to push down with the boot HARD.

serf 3y ago

if I have an answer-box that tells me the answers to whatever I want to hear, i'd like to be able to vet whether or not it has biases that were not honestly disclosed. that is to say that if I bought an Amerurissan made answer-box I would expect that it gives me unbiased answers that were becoming of an answer-box, but if I was unable to know how it worked then the only way that I would be able to determine whether or not the Amerurissan answer-box was giving pro-Amerurissan advice for its' creators own benefit would be through statistical analysis and long-term effort. If were making the case for making tools do all the work in the world, it's better that the people stay firmly connected to how and why those tools are being made, rather than trusting a singular ideology to get it right the first time for all of humanity.