3 ms·

> nobody is arguing that AI shouldn’t be taken seriously As far as I can tell, this is exactly what is happening when someone invokes “it’s just a moral panic”

> nobody is arguing that AI shouldn’t be taken seriously As far as I can tell, this is exactly what is happening when someone invokes “it’s just a moral panic”. It’s an unserious argument, in that it has no direct relevance to the underlying concerns. > there is no proof that any existing technology in our hands is the harbinger of doom We have a pretty good idea of how the world could look if nuclear war broke out. We can’t prove to the last detail exactly what it would look like, but we know it’s bad, and something we don’t want. We DO have proof that existing technology is leading to direct harm, and we can form reasonable extrapolations of what further harm will result from further proliferation of similar tech. And I don’t think doom is even the primary concern. The concern is the vast space leading up to doom. Doom is a distraction from what is right in front of us.

dcow 3y ago
How did we get from AI LLMs to nuclear apocalypse? You’ve articulated my point better than I have, it seems (= Edit: I see you misinterpreted my comment. I should have been specific and said “any existing AI adjacent technology” in our hands… Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not “the canaries were wrong in the past they are obviously wrong about AI” (as TFA suggests) or even “we’ve survived disaster before meh we can do it again” (a more cavalier take). It’s that the burden of proof falls on the doomsayers to convince humanity that <insert potentially dangerous technology> is sufficiently dangerous to warrant censorship and regulation, etc.
- haswell 3y ago
  > Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not... I'm not sure why that would be clear at all. The point of my top level comment was that it's difficult to engage with many people about this subject exactly because they rely on "the canaries were wrong..." and "we've survived before" arguments, which were the subject of the article we're all discussing. I don't even think the doomsday narrative is the interesting or particular relevant one when it comes to examining risk. If all we did was focus on the implications of the tech in its current form and the risks/issues the current iteration already presents, we'd have enough issues to chew on for years ranging from fair use, to copyright, worker's rights, deepfakes, the explosion of misinformation, etc. etc. These are real issues that exist right now, have no solutions, and all threaten various aspects of the fabric of society and our legal system. I also suspect there are workable solutions to many of these problems, but as of now, they're mostly unsolved and I understand why some people are deeply uncomfortable with continuing to charge forward. Most technology revolutions don't happy as quickly as what we're seeing with AI, and it's the rate of change that is also spurring on quite a bit of concern. > It’s that the burden of proof falls on the doomsayers to convince humanity that... I don't think this is a useful way to frame the issue. Ideally, all parties involved in advancing this tech are engaged in an ongoing conversation/debate about what is or is not a valid concern, and how to address those concerns. Optimists need to be steel-manning the concerns, and pessimists need to be steel-manning the rosy outlook. Everyone involved needs to discard fallacious forms of argument whenever it can be identified. Framing this as "doomers vs. humanity" polarizes an issue that need not be polarizing. Whether you're a doomer or optimist, there exists underneath all of this the reality of the situation, and it's in the best interest of all involved parties to work towards understanding that reality together, whatever it is. What I think we can say confidently is that the form of argument called out in the article does not move anyone closer to that understanding.
  - dcow 3y ago
    > These are real issues that exist right now, have no solutions, and all threaten various aspects of the fabric of society and our legal system. Can you share a few examples?
    - squigz 3y ago
      They did > enough issues to chew on for years ranging from fair use, to copyright, worker's rights, deepfakes, the explosion of misinformation, etc. etc.
      - dcow 2y ago
        They blanked cited a list of feely subjects. They did not describe actual problems. Workers, for instance, do not have the right to “not compete against an AI” (if that’s what’s being referenced). There are no copyright issues if people license content for training. AI does not newly or uniquely introduce “misinformation” into society. These are all interesting things to have discussions about, but they are not de facto problems just because the tech is potentially disruptive.

dcow 3y ago

How did we get from AI LLMs to nuclear apocalypse? You’ve articulated my point better than I have, it seems (= Edit: I see you misinterpreted my comment. I should have been specific and said “any existing AI adjacent technology” in our hands… Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not “the canaries were wrong in the past they are obviously wrong about AI” (as TFA suggests) or even “we’ve survived disaster before meh we can do it again” (a more cavalier take). It’s that the burden of proof falls on the doomsayers to convince humanity that <insert potentially dangerous technology> is sufficiently dangerous to warrant censorship and regulation, etc.

haswell 3y ago
> Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not... I'm not sure why that would be clear at all. The point of my top level comment was that it's difficult to engage with many people about this subject exactly because they rely on "the canaries were wrong..." and "we've survived before" arguments, which were the subject of the article we're all discussing. I don't even think the doomsday narrative is the interesting or particular relevant one when it comes to examining risk. If all we did was focus on the implications of the tech in its current form and the risks/issues the current iteration already presents, we'd have enough issues to chew on for years ranging from fair use, to copyright, worker's rights, deepfakes, the explosion of misinformation, etc. etc. These are real issues that exist right now, have no solutions, and all threaten various aspects of the fabric of society and our legal system. I also suspect there are workable solutions to many of these problems, but as of now, they're mostly unsolved and I understand why some people are deeply uncomfortable with continuing to charge forward. Most technology revolutions don't happy as quickly as what we're seeing with AI, and it's the rate of change that is also spurring on quite a bit of concern. > It’s that the burden of proof falls on the doomsayers to convince humanity that... I don't think this is a useful way to frame the issue. Ideally, all parties involved in advancing this tech are engaged in an ongoing conversation/debate about what is or is not a valid concern, and how to address those concerns. Optimists need to be steel-manning the concerns, and pessimists need to be steel-manning the rosy outlook. Everyone involved needs to discard fallacious forms of argument whenever it can be identified. Framing this as "doomers vs. humanity" polarizes an issue that need not be polarizing. Whether you're a doomer or optimist, there exists underneath all of this the reality of the situation, and it's in the best interest of all involved parties to work towards understanding that reality together, whatever it is. What I think we can say confidently is that the form of argument called out in the article does not move anyone closer to that understanding.
- dcow 3y ago
  > These are real issues that exist right now, have no solutions, and all threaten various aspects of the fabric of society and our legal system. Can you share a few examples?
  - squigz 3y ago
    They did > enough issues to chew on for years ranging from fair use, to copyright, worker's rights, deepfakes, the explosion of misinformation, etc. etc.
    - dcow 2y ago
      They blanked cited a list of feely subjects. They did not describe actual problems. Workers, for instance, do not have the right to “not compete against an AI” (if that’s what’s being referenced). There are no copyright issues if people license content for training. AI does not newly or uniquely introduce “misinformation” into society. These are all interesting things to have discussions about, but they are not de facto problems just because the tech is potentially disruptive.