4 ms·

That's an argument from authority fallacy. It doesn't matter how many citations you have, you either have the arguments for your position or you do not have the

• kromem 3y ago
  In many ways, we're effectively discussing the accuracy by which the engineers of the Gutenburg printing press are able to predict the future of literature.
  • B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
    IMHO, the impact of the printing press was much more in advertising than literature. Although that is by no means the official position. (Same can be argued for radio/tv/internet - "content" is what people talk about, but advertising is what moves money)
    • kridsdale3 3y ago
      The printing press's impact was in ending the Catholic Church's monopoly over information, and thereby "the truth". It took 400 years for that process to take place. The Gutenberg Era lasted all the way from its invention to (I'd say) the proliferation of radio stations.
  • jackcosgrove 3y ago
    The printing press did end the middle ages. It was an eschatological invention, using the weaker definition of the term.
    • kromem 3y ago
      Right, but the question is if the engineers who intimately understood the function of the press itself were the experts that should have been looked to in predicting the sociopolitical impacts of the machine and the ways in which it would transform the media with which it was engaged. I'm not always that impressed by the discussion of AI or LLMs by engineers who undisputably have great things to say about the operation when they step outside their lane in predicting broader impacts or how the recursive content refinement is going to manifest over the next decade.
      • arisAlexis 3y ago
        the question is if the machine will explode, not societal impacts, that's where the miscommunication is. Existential risks are not societal impacts, they are detonation probability.
        • kromem 3y ago
          Not really. So much regarding that topic depends on what's actually modeled in the training data, not how it is being trained on that data. They aren't experts on what's encoded in the training data, as the last three years have made abundantly clear.
          • arisAlexis 3y ago
            That's exactly what I am saying. Since humanity has to bet the lives of our children on something very new and unpredictable, I would bet mine on the top 3 scientists and not your opinion. Sorry.they must be definition make better predictions than you and me.
            • kromem 3y ago
              Would you bet that Oppenheimer would have by definition made better predictions how the bomb was going to change the future of war than someone who understood the summary of the bomb's technical effects from the scientists but also had studied and researched geopolitical diplomacy changes resulting from advances in war technologies? There's more to predicting the impact and evolution of technology than simply the mechanics of how it is being built today and will be built tomorrow (the area of expertise where they are more likely to be accurate). And keep in mind that Hinton's alarm was sparked by the fact he was wrong about how the technology was developing, seeing a LLM explain a joke it had never seen before - a capability he specifically hadn't thought it would develop. So it was his failure to successfully predict how the tech would develop that caused him to go warning about how the tech might develop. Maybe we should be taking those warnings with the grain of salt they are due coming from experts who were broadly wrong about what was going to be possible in the near future, let alone the far future. It took everyone by surprise - so there was no shame in being wrong. But these aren't exactly AI prophets with a stellar track record of prediction even if they have a stellar track record of research and development.
  • creer 3y ago
    Yes very good! All the more so that today's is a machine that potentially gains its own autonomy - that is, has a say in its and our future. All the more so that this autonomy is quite likely not human in its thinking.
• KingMob 3y ago
  But Bayesian priors also have to be adjusted when you know there's a profit motive. With a lot of money at stake, the people seeing $$$ from AI have an incentive to develop, focus on, and advance low-risk arguments. No argument is total; what aspects are they cherry-picking? I trust AI VCs to make good arguments less than AI researchers.
• arisAlexis 3y ago
  it's not about societal changes. It's about calculating risk of invention and let me give you an example: Who do you think can better estimate the risk of engine fire in a Red Bull F1: the chief engineer or Max the driver? It is obviously the creator. And we are talking about invention safety here. VCs and other "tech gurus" cannot comprehend exactly how the system works. Actually the problem is that they think they know how it works when the people that created say there is no way of us knowing and they are black boxes.
• tgv 3y ago
  > That's an argument from authority fallacy. Right. We should develop all arguments from commonly agreed, basic principles in every discussion. Or you could accept that some of these people have a better understanding, did put forth some arguments, and that it's your turn to rebuke those arguments, or point at arguments which do. Otherwise, you'll have to find somebody to trust.
• tim333 3y ago
  Maybe but I'd say it was also an argument from people who know their stuff vs an a biased idiot.