3 ms·
To add to this, the people writing these articles are not stupid and know there is more than one understanding for the words they're using. They choose not to c
by Xelynega 3y ago
To add to this, the people writing these articles are not stupid and know there is more than one understanding for the words they're using. They choose not to clarify on purpose, or they're incompetent and I don't want to believe that's the case.
"AI safety" imo should be the blanket term for "any harm done to society by the technology", and it's the responsibility of anyone using the term to clarify the usage.
If someone is trying to tell you to support/decry something because of "AI safety" they're tying to use the vagueness to take advantage of you.
If someone is trying to tell you that "ai safety people are dumb", they're trying to use the most extreme examples to change your opinion on the moderate cases, and are trying to take advantage of you.
- yreg 3y ago> they're tying to use the vagueness to take advantage of you Not always. I see AI safety used without further specification all the time even here on hacker news. I doubt the users are trying to take advantage of anyone. In that case it's more of a case of the author considering one of those meanings so much more important/relevant that they think it's obvious what they mean. But often it's not – everyone fills in the meaning they care about the most.
- Jensson 3y agoIn a comment it takes too much effort to specify every word you use, so instead comments relies much more on context. If a discussion is about models getting neutered then AI safety probably means that and so on. But when you write a full article then the context is your article so you have to specify what you mean there, and the effort to specify it in an article is relatively little work compared to doing it in every comment.