2 ms·

1) Suleyman, Ilya are not AI Ethicists. They are great AI/ML practitioners who have great Ethics. Which kind of highlights my point. Hire great AI/ML practitio

1) Suleyman, Ilya are not AI Ethicists. They are great AI/ML practitioners who have great Ethics. Which kind of highlights my point. Hire great AI/ML practitioners with strong Ethics. E.g Demis, Jeff Dean are also great practitioners with integrity and ethics. Grift is having an AI Ethics division whose sole purpose is to kneecap advancement. E.g Timnit and Alex Hanna 2) You are assuming that openAI, Microsoft and Google aren't cautious about their development. In fact their entire LLM releases are filled with over-cautious approach 3) Once again Hinton or Suleyman and Ilya are not the Ethics the article is talking about. They are talking about low-level grifters whose entire identity is depended ant on AI Ethics. I'm perfectly fine with Hinton, Ilya and Mustafa acting as AI ethicists. 6) LLMs are not cataclysmic. It's been 1 year since chatGPT has been released and pretty much diffused through out the world along with Midjourney and Runway. Yet, the world seems to perfectly chugging along fine (Yes, I understand long-tail risks, but they are completely overblown). Calling LLMs cataclysmic and raising alarms is exactly the wrong approach because what you are doing is effectively numbing down the public to AI alarmism. We have seen this play out before Climate, Donald Trump (because Mitt Romney was cataclysmic), Andrew Tate (because Jordan Petersen was cataclysmic)

llamaimperative 3y ago
Sure, if you really mean people whose title and entire background is "AI ethicists" there are certainly lots of grifters (not "all" of them as you claim). It's to everyone's advantage, however, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 2) No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing in actual reality unexpected and unintended results with every single release. That is clear evidence that they do not have a complete grasp on what they're building, which doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be stopped, but it does mean we can't be asleep at the wheel and just assuming "technology makes everything better." 6) I didn't say LLMs are cataclysmic, but they have made evident a few things. First, that we aren't great at predicting emergent capabilities. Second, that builders of these technologies will be deploying them to the public en masse before they're well understood and indeed connect these technologies to vital systems with real-world impact. Third, that capitalist incentives will almost certainly override other concerns. These are good reasons to be worried about the path of development of AI overall. They indicate that the system (technological capitalism) around the systems (the technologies themselves) are going to struggle to really steer its development in a deliberate fashion. Competitive market incentives will steer the ship, and we have no reason to believe that'll change between here and AGI.

llamaimperative 3y ago

Sure, if you really mean people whose title and entire background is "AI ethicists" there are certainly lots of grifters (not "all" of them as you claim). It's to everyone's advantage, however, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 2) No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing in actual reality unexpected and unintended results with every single release. That is clear evidence that they do not have a complete grasp on what they're building, which doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be stopped, but it does mean we can't be asleep at the wheel and just assuming "technology makes everything better." 6) I didn't say LLMs are cataclysmic, but they have made evident a few things. First, that we aren't great at predicting emergent capabilities. Second, that builders of these technologies will be deploying them to the public en masse before they're well understood and indeed connect these technologies to vital systems with real-world impact. Third, that capitalist incentives will almost certainly override other concerns. These are good reasons to be worried about the path of development of AI overall. They indicate that the system (technological capitalism) around the systems (the technologies themselves) are going to struggle to really steer its development in a deliberate fashion. Competitive market incentives will steer the ship, and we have no reason to believe that'll change between here and AGI.