4 ms·

There is no paradox as I see it. All involved believe that AI is going to be revolutionary. They only disagree on its potential impact. But either way, if you b

There is no paradox as I see it. All involved believe that AI is going to be revolutionary. They only disagree on its potential impact. But either way, if you believe this is going to be something powerful, then you would want to be able to possess it, control it and learn all about it. Although I respect Mr. Musk, I am partial towards Mr. Page's prediction. We are not going to be able to keep AI in a bottle, just like we could never dream of keeping any other technological revolution of the past contained.

keiferski 3y ago
The paradox is that this technology only comes into being by deliberate effort from those claiming it is dangerous. These companies wouldn’t exist if they weren’t funded by SV billionaires and corps. I thought the recent Oppenheimer film dramatized this sort of scenario quite well. People rushing to build a weapon, claiming it’s dangerous and must not be used, and then feigning innocence and surprise when it was used.
- roenxi 3y ago
  It makes more sense in the bigger picture. Extending the nuclear example - the scenario after building nukes is that one day everyone will die. The scenario before nukes is one day everyone will die. So on the one side everyone is correct, the nukes are dangerous and should not be used. But on the other hand, the end state hasn't changed and the path seems to be a bit better. So, arguably a good idea. But it'd be even better if we don't all nuke each other. AI is similar. We're already on the clock before WWIII or maybe WWIV wipes out everything. However, in the mean time, AI will probably lead to some really great outcomes. Or if it replaces us then hey, we weren't doing so hot anyway and at least AI is has a better shot of getting off the planet. All life is in it together! Or in the extreme case, maybe it is a dud and the whole things was a false alarm, although that seems a stretch.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I’m not commenting so much on the specific reasoning, as I think it’s a complex topic and I haven’t thought/read enough about it. I’m more just pointing out that key figures seem to downplay their own agency and responsibility for their actions, offloading them to “it would have happened anyway.” Maybe, but that’s a counterfactual and I think it’s pretty easy to see how a few decisions and lack of funding in certain areas would have changed the historical trajectory quite a bit.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    > Or if it replaces us then hey, we weren't doing so hot anyway and at least AI is has a better shot of getting off the planet. Just like Page was mentioned, there is an alarming amount of people who believe "hey if we kill all humans so that our computer creations go on to do cool things, so be it." Including e/acc founder. https://twitter.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1683462000360280065 https://twitter.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1683462000360280065 You are far past the crazies that say "just nuke X country."
    - roenxi 3y ago
      "Nuking X country" is also an inevitability at this point. The only question is how long - we're not sure if we're seeing 10%, 1% or 0.1% events with the near misses from the US and Russia. Let alone the proliferation issues and whatever we don't hear about. At least with AI something is being created that is greater than us. The high probability of a nuclear war is only going to be creating a park for cockroaches.
- sgt101 3y ago
  They wanted it to be used to used, on Nazis.
- abecedarius 3y ago
  "feigning innocence and surprise" is quite unfair in both cases. E.g. Szilard invented the nuclear chain reaction, pushed his colleagues to avoid open research, and then when an arms race was apparently at the point of starting, wrote that letter to the U.S. president to start the Manhattan project; and tried to influence how it was used and governed. This is maybe not such a close analogy to people like Yudkowsky, but it's surprisingly close as history goes.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    And yet they still did the work to build the bomb. It is a complex ethical situation, but I don’t think you get to build innovative new weapons for your political leaders and then consider yourself off the hook when they decide to use them against your too-little, too-late advice.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> But either way, if you believe this is going to be something powerful, then you would want to be able to possess it, control it and learn all about it. This reveals interesting assumptions. There are some powerful things where you simply want to put as much distance between you and it as possible. We have forgotten that, in our hubris. There are many nasty, predatory things in nature that work by enticing its victim into wanting to possess and control it. That is the essence of the con (confidence trick) that underlies a big portion of social engineering. When "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" it's compulsion, not reason. "Technological determinism" is a failure of will, common I think, amongst those who actually lack vision and need a "Utopian narrative" to fill in the emptiness. It's not that "the will" is wrong, it's just missing. We are doing 21st century science bit still with an 18th century science and technology attitude, stumbling along from one surprise to the next, mouths agog in technical awe and giddy excitement. As a kid in the 20th century I'd always imagined that 21st century science would be purposeful, and rooted in some coherent social telos. After all, the problems of the world are quite evident. To "posses and control" one has to see the thing as a weapon, and that is the unsaid thing in all these discussions. The "AI debate" is all about blind hope. Hope that a largely incomprehensible technology will serve my interests better than yours - and that I can weaponise them before others do, and that I'm prepared to risk everybody's welfare to take a shot at it.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >To "posses and control" one has to see the thing as a weapon Nonsense. Plenty of people want to possess and control things other than weapons.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    You missed out the word "powerful" which makes a difference. Sure one can benignly possess and control a work of fine art, or a pet goldfish. But when one directs a powerful thing it is in hope to make proxy use of that power. For example. a vicious guard dog.
somewhereoutth 3y ago
Except it won't be revolutionary. The current crop of text or image generators may automate the production of low quality text and images, may produce useful diagnostic and comprehension tools, and indeed may replace some people's jobs, but that is it. Underlying the hype is the desire of technical people to stay relevant in a world that has absorbed and purposed the mobile internet, and thereafter really isn't that interested in much more. There are more pressing non-technical problems to solve, and they will be solved without technical people. (wealth inequality, sustaining our environment, and demographic collapse being the most pressing)
- fassssst 3y ago
  A casual browse of /r/stablediffusion proves otherwise. The innovation of the last few weeks is already on full display and will disrupt so many professional workflows.
- tim333 3y ago
  The current crop will be replaced by version 2,3,4...
tim333 3y ago
>could never dream of keeping any other technological revolution of the past contained We do an imperfect job of keeping nukes, neurotoxins and bioweapons contained. Better to try to be cautious than just give up.
wolverine876 3y ago
> just like we could never dream of keeping any other technological revolution of the past contained We contain many of them, such as many dangerous drugs, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, etc. The argument that it's inevitable is, if we step back, transparently self-serving for the SV powers. Not coincidentally it ends the same as all their reasoning: Maximized power and money for them.

keiferski 3y ago

The paradox is that this technology only comes into being by deliberate effort from those claiming it is dangerous. These companies wouldn’t exist if they weren’t funded by SV billionaires and corps. I thought the recent Oppenheimer film dramatized this sort of scenario quite well. People rushing to build a weapon, claiming it’s dangerous and must not be used, and then feigning innocence and surprise when it was used.

roenxi 3y ago
It makes more sense in the bigger picture. Extending the nuclear example - the scenario after building nukes is that one day everyone will die. The scenario before nukes is one day everyone will die. So on the one side everyone is correct, the nukes are dangerous and should not be used. But on the other hand, the end state hasn't changed and the path seems to be a bit better. So, arguably a good idea. But it'd be even better if we don't all nuke each other. AI is similar. We're already on the clock before WWIII or maybe WWIV wipes out everything. However, in the mean time, AI will probably lead to some really great outcomes. Or if it replaces us then hey, we weren't doing so hot anyway and at least AI is has a better shot of getting off the planet. All life is in it together! Or in the extreme case, maybe it is a dud and the whole things was a false alarm, although that seems a stretch.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I’m not commenting so much on the specific reasoning, as I think it’s a complex topic and I haven’t thought/read enough about it. I’m more just pointing out that key figures seem to downplay their own agency and responsibility for their actions, offloading them to “it would have happened anyway.” Maybe, but that’s a counterfactual and I think it’s pretty easy to see how a few decisions and lack of funding in certain areas would have changed the historical trajectory quite a bit.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  > Or if it replaces us then hey, we weren't doing so hot anyway and at least AI is has a better shot of getting off the planet. Just like Page was mentioned, there is an alarming amount of people who believe "hey if we kill all humans so that our computer creations go on to do cool things, so be it." Including e/acc founder. https://twitter.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1683462000360280065 https://twitter.com/AISafetyMemes/status/1683462000360280065 You are far past the crazies that say "just nuke X country."
  - roenxi 3y ago
    "Nuking X country" is also an inevitability at this point. The only question is how long - we're not sure if we're seeing 10%, 1% or 0.1% events with the near misses from the US and Russia. Let alone the proliferation issues and whatever we don't hear about. At least with AI something is being created that is greater than us. The high probability of a nuclear war is only going to be creating a park for cockroaches.
sgt101 3y ago
They wanted it to be used to used, on Nazis.
abecedarius 3y ago
"feigning innocence and surprise" is quite unfair in both cases. E.g. Szilard invented the nuclear chain reaction, pushed his colleagues to avoid open research, and then when an arms race was apparently at the point of starting, wrote that letter to the U.S. president to start the Manhattan project; and tried to influence how it was used and governed. This is maybe not such a close analogy to people like Yudkowsky, but it's surprisingly close as history goes.
- keiferski 3y ago
  And yet they still did the work to build the bomb. It is a complex ethical situation, but I don’t think you get to build innovative new weapons for your political leaders and then consider yourself off the hook when they decide to use them against your too-little, too-late advice.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> But either way, if you believe this is going to be something powerful, then you would want to be able to possess it, control it and learn all about it. This reveals interesting assumptions. There are some powerful things where you simply want to put as much distance between you and it as possible. We have forgotten that, in our hubris. There are many nasty, predatory things in nature that work by enticing its victim into wanting to possess and control it. That is the essence of the con (confidence trick) that underlies a big portion of social engineering. When "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" it's compulsion, not reason. "Technological determinism" is a failure of will, common I think, amongst those who actually lack vision and need a "Utopian narrative" to fill in the emptiness. It's not that "the will" is wrong, it's just missing. We are doing 21st century science bit still with an 18th century science and technology attitude, stumbling along from one surprise to the next, mouths agog in technical awe and giddy excitement. As a kid in the 20th century I'd always imagined that 21st century science would be purposeful, and rooted in some coherent social telos. After all, the problems of the world are quite evident. To "posses and control" one has to see the thing as a weapon, and that is the unsaid thing in all these discussions. The "AI debate" is all about blind hope. Hope that a largely incomprehensible technology will serve my interests better than yours - and that I can weaponise them before others do, and that I'm prepared to risk everybody's welfare to take a shot at it.

thfuran 3y ago
>To "posses and control" one has to see the thing as a weapon Nonsense. Plenty of people want to possess and control things other than weapons.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  You missed out the word "powerful" which makes a difference. Sure one can benignly possess and control a work of fine art, or a pet goldfish. But when one directs a powerful thing it is in hope to make proxy use of that power. For example. a vicious guard dog.

somewhereoutth 3y ago

Except it won't be revolutionary. The current crop of text or image generators may automate the production of low quality text and images, may produce useful diagnostic and comprehension tools, and indeed may replace some people's jobs, but that is it. Underlying the hype is the desire of technical people to stay relevant in a world that has absorbed and purposed the mobile internet, and thereafter really isn't that interested in much more. There are more pressing non-technical problems to solve, and they will be solved without technical people. (wealth inequality, sustaining our environment, and demographic collapse being the most pressing)

fassssst 3y ago
A casual browse of /r/stablediffusion proves otherwise. The innovation of the last few weeks is already on full display and will disrupt so many professional workflows.
tim333 3y ago
The current crop will be replaced by version 2,3,4...

tim333 3y ago

>could never dream of keeping any other technological revolution of the past contained We do an imperfect job of keeping nukes, neurotoxins and bioweapons contained. Better to try to be cautious than just give up.

wolverine876 3y ago

> just like we could never dream of keeping any other technological revolution of the past contained We contain many of them, such as many dangerous drugs, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, etc. The argument that it's inevitable is, if we step back, transparently self-serving for the SV powers. Not coincidentally it ends the same as all their reasoning: Maximized power and money for them.