3 ms·

What things? The pauses to consider if we should do <action>, before we actually do <action>. Tesla's "Self-Driving" is an example of too soon, but fuck it, w

What things? The pauses to consider if we should do <action>, before we actually do <action>. Tesla's "Self-Driving" is an example of too soon, but fuck it, we gots PROFITS to make and if a few pedestrians die, we'll just throw them a check and keep going. Imagine the trainwreck caused by millions of people leveraging AI like the SCOTUS lawyers, where their brief was written by AI and noted imagined cases in support of its decision. AI has the potential to make great change in the world, as the tech grows, but it's being guided by humans. Humans aren't known for altruism or kindness. (source: history) and now we're concentrating even more power into fewer hands. Luckily, I'll be dead long before AI gets crammed into every possible facet of life. Note that AI is inserted, not because it makes your life better, not because the world would be a better place for it and not even to free humans of mundane tasks. Instead it's because someone, somewhere can earn more profits, whether it works right or not and humans are the grease in the wheels.

pixl97 3y ago
>The pauses to consider if we should do <action>, before we actually do <action>. Unless there has been an effective gatekeeper, that's almost never happened in history. With nuclear the gatekeeper is it's easy to detect. With genetics there pretty universal revulsion to it to the point a large portion of most populations are concerned about it. But with AI, to most people it's just software. And pretty much it is, if you want a universal ban of AI you really are asking for authoritarian type controls on it.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > But with AI, to most people it's just software. Practical AI involves cutting-edge hardware, which is produced in relatively few places. AI that runs on a CPU will not be a danger to anyone for much longer. Also, nobody's asking for a universal ban on AI. People are asking for an upper bound on AI capabilities (e.g. number of nodes/tokens) until we have widely proven techniques for AI alignment. (Or, in other words, until we have the ability to reliably tell AI to do something and have it do that thing and not entirely different and dangerous things).
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Right, and when I was a kid computers were things that fit on entire office floors. If your 'much longer' is only 30-40 years I could still be around then. In addition you're just asking for limits on compute, which ain't gonna go over well. How do you know if it's running a daily weather model, or making an AI. And how do you even measure capabilities when we're coming out with with other functions like transformers that are X times more efficient. What you want with AI cannot happen. If it's 100% predictable it's a calculation. If it's a generalization function taking incomplete information (something humans do) it will have unpredictable modes.
pc86 3y ago
Is a Tesla FSD car a worse driver than a human of median skill and ability? Sure we can pull out articles of tragedies, but I'm not asking about that. Everything I've seen points to cars being driven on Autopilot being quite a bit safer than your average human driver, which is admittedly not a high bar, but I think painting it as "greedy billionaire literally kills people for PROFITS" is at best disingenuous to what's actually occurring.

pixl97 3y ago

>The pauses to consider if we should do <action>, before we actually do <action>. Unless there has been an effective gatekeeper, that's almost never happened in history. With nuclear the gatekeeper is it's easy to detect. With genetics there pretty universal revulsion to it to the point a large portion of most populations are concerned about it. But with AI, to most people it's just software. And pretty much it is, if you want a universal ban of AI you really are asking for authoritarian type controls on it.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
> But with AI, to most people it's just software. Practical AI involves cutting-edge hardware, which is produced in relatively few places. AI that runs on a CPU will not be a danger to anyone for much longer. Also, nobody's asking for a universal ban on AI. People are asking for an upper bound on AI capabilities (e.g. number of nodes/tokens) until we have widely proven techniques for AI alignment. (Or, in other words, until we have the ability to reliably tell AI to do something and have it do that thing and not entirely different and dangerous things).
- pixl97 3y ago
  Right, and when I was a kid computers were things that fit on entire office floors. If your 'much longer' is only 30-40 years I could still be around then. In addition you're just asking for limits on compute, which ain't gonna go over well. How do you know if it's running a daily weather model, or making an AI. And how do you even measure capabilities when we're coming out with with other functions like transformers that are X times more efficient. What you want with AI cannot happen. If it's 100% predictable it's a calculation. If it's a generalization function taking incomplete information (something humans do) it will have unpredictable modes.

pc86 3y ago

Is a Tesla FSD car a worse driver than a human of median skill and ability? Sure we can pull out articles of tragedies, but I'm not asking about that. Everything I've seen points to cars being driven on Autopilot being quite a bit safer than your average human driver, which is admittedly not a high bar, but I think painting it as "greedy billionaire literally kills people for PROFITS" is at best disingenuous to what's actually occurring.