6 ms·

People shouldn't be able to block others developing useful technologies just based on some scifi movie fears. Just like people shouldn't be able to vote to loc

People shouldn't be able to block others developing useful technologies just based on some scifi movie fears. Just like people shouldn't be able to vote to lock up or kill someone just because - people have rights and others can't just vote the rights away because they feel so.

Amezarak 3y ago
> People shouldn't be able to block others developing useful technologies just based on some scifi movie fears. The GP was suggesting we have to develop AI because of scifi movie visions of spacefaring utopia, which if anything is more ludicrous. I personally don't believe in AI "takeoff", or the singularity, or whatever. But if you do, AI is not a "useful technology." It's something that radically impacts every single life on Earth and takes our "rights" and our fate totally out of everyone's hands. The argument is about whether anyone has the right to remove all our rights by developing AGI.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  Both are unlikely but only one of the sides is arguing for limits/regulations of actually useful technology because they saw Terminator.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    It seems strange we're allowed to argue for a technology because we read Culture and not against it because we saw Terminator. Nevertheless, the goal of OpenAI and other organizations is to develop AGI and to deliberately cause the Singularity. You don't have to have watched Terminator to think (assuming it is possible) introducing a superpowered alien intellect to the world is a extremely risky idea. It's prima facie so. I am against all regulation of LLMs. "AI safety" for what we currently call "AI" is just a power grab to consolidate and solidify the position of existing players via government regulation. At any rate nobody seems to be arguing this because they saw Terminator, but that they don't like the idea of people who aren't like them being able to use these tools. The "danger" they always discuss is stuff like "those people could more easily produce propaganda."
    - throwaway11460 3y ago
      I don't know, I don't see these people you're talking about. It's always someone talking about world-ending AGI runaway that will take over your AWS instance, then AWS itself and then convert the solar system to a DC, or something.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        To be fair, as somebody who thinks that, it's not like that's the plot of any particular movie. (Terminator went completely differently, for one.)
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      As a doomer who is pro-LLM regulation, let me note that the "people could produce propaganda" folk don't speak for me and that I am actually serious about LLMs posing a danger in the "break out of the datacenter and start making paperclips" way, and that I find it depressing that those folks have become the face of safety. Yes I am serious, yes I know how LLMs work, no I don't agree that means they can't be agentic, no I don't think GPT-4 is dangerous but GPT-5 might be if you give it just the right prompt. (And that's why we should rename it to "AI notkilleveryoneism"...)
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I get this point, but I just don't see us anywhere near technology that warrants this level of concern. The most advanced technology can't write 30 lines of coherent Go for me using billions of dollars in hardware. Sure, more compute will help it write more bullshit faster, and possibly tell better lies, but it's not going to make it sentient. There's a fundamental technological problem that differentiates what we have and intelligence. And until there's some solution for that I'm not really worried. To me it looks like a bunch of hype and marketing over a neat card trick.

Amezarak 3y ago

> People shouldn't be able to block others developing useful technologies just based on some scifi movie fears. The GP was suggesting we have to develop AI because of scifi movie visions of spacefaring utopia, which if anything is more ludicrous. I personally don't believe in AI "takeoff", or the singularity, or whatever. But if you do, AI is not a "useful technology." It's something that radically impacts every single life on Earth and takes our "rights" and our fate totally out of everyone's hands. The argument is about whether anyone has the right to remove all our rights by developing AGI.

throwaway11460 3y ago
Both are unlikely but only one of the sides is arguing for limits/regulations of actually useful technology because they saw Terminator.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  It seems strange we're allowed to argue for a technology because we read Culture and not against it because we saw Terminator. Nevertheless, the goal of OpenAI and other organizations is to develop AGI and to deliberately cause the Singularity. You don't have to have watched Terminator to think (assuming it is possible) introducing a superpowered alien intellect to the world is a extremely risky idea. It's prima facie so. I am against all regulation of LLMs. "AI safety" for what we currently call "AI" is just a power grab to consolidate and solidify the position of existing players via government regulation. At any rate nobody seems to be arguing this because they saw Terminator, but that they don't like the idea of people who aren't like them being able to use these tools. The "danger" they always discuss is stuff like "those people could more easily produce propaganda."
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    I don't know, I don't see these people you're talking about. It's always someone talking about world-ending AGI runaway that will take over your AWS instance, then AWS itself and then convert the solar system to a DC, or something.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      To be fair, as somebody who thinks that, it's not like that's the plot of any particular movie. (Terminator went completely differently, for one.)
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    As a doomer who is pro-LLM regulation, let me note that the "people could produce propaganda" folk don't speak for me and that I am actually serious about LLMs posing a danger in the "break out of the datacenter and start making paperclips" way, and that I find it depressing that those folks have become the face of safety. Yes I am serious, yes I know how LLMs work, no I don't agree that means they can't be agentic, no I don't think GPT-4 is dangerous but GPT-5 might be if you give it just the right prompt. (And that's why we should rename it to "AI notkilleveryoneism"...)
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      I get this point, but I just don't see us anywhere near technology that warrants this level of concern. The most advanced technology can't write 30 lines of coherent Go for me using billions of dollars in hardware. Sure, more compute will help it write more bullshit faster, and possibly tell better lies, but it's not going to make it sentient. There's a fundamental technological problem that differentiates what we have and intelligence. And until there's some solution for that I'm not really worried. To me it looks like a bunch of hype and marketing over a neat card trick.