3 ms·

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

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.

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.