3 ms·

An extensive HYPOTHETICAL argument, stuffed with assumptions far beyond the capabilities of the technologies they're talking about for their own private ends.

ben_w 3y ago
If the AI already had the capabilities, it would be a bit late to do anything. Also, I'm old enough to remember when computers were supposedly "over a century" away from beating humans at Go: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-experts-were-way-off-on-when-a-computer-could-win-go-2016-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-experts-were-way-off-on-w... (And that AI could "never" drive cars or create art or music, though that latter kind of claim was generally made by non-AI people).
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Yeah but AI tech can never rise to the sophistication of outputting Napoleon or Edvard Bernays level of goal to action mapping. Those goal posts will never move. They are set in stone.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    The trouble is, there's enough people out there that hold that position sincerely that I'm only 2/3rds sure (and that from the style of your final sentences rather than any content) that you're being snarky.
sensanaty 3y ago
The point of the discussion is to have a look at the possible future ramifications of the technology, so it's only logical to talk about future capabilities and not the current ones. Obviously the current puppet chatbots aren't gonna be doing much ruining (even that's arguable already judging by all the layoffs), but what are future versions of these LLMs/AIs going to be doing to us? After all, if we only discussed the dangers of nuclear weapons after they've been dropped on cities, well that's too little too late, eh?
- te_chris 3y ago
  There’s a difference between academic discussion and debate and scare mongering lobbying. These orgs do the latter. It’s even worse though, because the spend so much time going on about x-risk bullshit they crowd out space for actual, valuable discussion about what’s happening NOW.

ben_w 3y ago

If the AI already had the capabilities, it would be a bit late to do anything. Also, I'm old enough to remember when computers were supposedly "over a century" away from beating humans at Go: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-experts-were-way-off-on-when-a-computer-could-win-go-2016-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-experts-were-way-off-on-w... (And that AI could "never" drive cars or create art or music, though that latter kind of claim was generally made by non-AI people).

ImHereToVote 3y ago
Yeah but AI tech can never rise to the sophistication of outputting Napoleon or Edvard Bernays level of goal to action mapping. Those goal posts will never move. They are set in stone.
- ben_w 3y ago
  The trouble is, there's enough people out there that hold that position sincerely that I'm only 2/3rds sure (and that from the style of your final sentences rather than any content) that you're being snarky.

sensanaty 3y ago

The point of the discussion is to have a look at the possible future ramifications of the technology, so it's only logical to talk about future capabilities and not the current ones. Obviously the current puppet chatbots aren't gonna be doing much ruining (even that's arguable already judging by all the layoffs), but what are future versions of these LLMs/AIs going to be doing to us? After all, if we only discussed the dangers of nuclear weapons after they've been dropped on cities, well that's too little too late, eh?

te_chris 3y ago
There’s a difference between academic discussion and debate and scare mongering lobbying. These orgs do the latter. It’s even worse though, because the spend so much time going on about x-risk bullshit they crowd out space for actual, valuable discussion about what’s happening NOW.