3 ms·

>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. I

>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. It's interesting that's how it looks like to you from the outside. If you look a little closer at the "AI Safety" community, it consists of two competing factions: the faction responsible for the Bard debacle, and the faction that's focused on trying to prevent human extinction -- "AI notkilleveryoneism", as in https://x.com/aisafetymemes https://x.com/aisafetymemes They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues".

talldayo 2y ago
> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues". Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person. Both sides are distracting each other because neither of them have anything to support without their valueless tribal politics. AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. The only dichotomy that exists in AI is the stuff that gets made and the stuff that doesn't. I say this as someone that despises the field by now and wishes it never existed in my lifetime; if you don't make it, they will. How's that for an AI safety policy?
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  > AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. Astonishing claim, when some such researchers have (unfortunately) been responsible for many of the most impressive capabilities advancements in the last few years, and the three most cited AI researchers of all time are all doing extinction-risk-mitigation work (with Bengio and Sutskever both doing technical work; Hinton mostly seems to be focusing on outreach).
  - talldayo 2y ago
    The world still funds AI that completely disregards the notion of "safety" out of the gate. You can argue that those AIs aren't dangerous to begin with, but I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents.
    - comp_throw7 2y ago
      > I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents Note that this is not a valid argument against any argument that superintelligent AI might kill everyone; it's just a character attack.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person. That’s why we don’t let a random Joe fly a 747, there is extensive training, licensing, etc. Do you envision the same for operating AI? In the real world you can’t even drive a moped without licence, registration and insurance. Same goes for access to dangerous chemicals. If AI is dangerous, this is the logical conclusion
  - talldayo 2y ago
    I envision that the existence of Air Traffic Control won't inherently stop people from using controlled airspace for hostile purposes. We can idealize what conduct looks like but failure of protocol still happens deliberately or by mistake. The same is going to happen with AI. There will be bad actors, and trying to stop them from using AI for whatever "hostile" purposes it might yield is going to be nigh-impossible.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      But it does work, 9/11 is not a daily occurrence.
consumer451 2y ago
Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  Massive inflation from the COVID shutdowns and stimulus checks happened.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    Do you have any data to support this statement?
- N0b8ez 2y ago
  I'd also like to know about anyone writing on this subject.
- deadbabe 2y ago
  Universal basic income? The idea behind that was people would go on to pursue more creative or artistic jobs that don’t prioritize profit after being given a basic income to live off. Unfortunately it won’t work out that way: We see now that AI will mostly take over creative and artistic work and people will have no motivation to pursue art. The only jobs left for humans are hard physical labor and no one seems excited to do that… so you’ll just be giving people basic income to sit around and do nothing all day. Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    > Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society. So what are we going to do with all of the excess humans once human productivity jumps one, two, or three more orders of magnitude?

talldayo 2y ago

> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues". Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person. Both sides are distracting each other because neither of them have anything to support without their valueless tribal politics. AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. The only dichotomy that exists in AI is the stuff that gets made and the stuff that doesn't. I say this as someone that despises the field by now and wishes it never existed in my lifetime; if you don't make it, they will. How's that for an AI safety policy?

comp_throw7 2y ago
> AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. Astonishing claim, when some such researchers have (unfortunately) been responsible for many of the most impressive capabilities advancements in the last few years, and the three most cited AI researchers of all time are all doing extinction-risk-mitigation work (with Bengio and Sutskever both doing technical work; Hinton mostly seems to be focusing on outreach).
- talldayo 2y ago
  The world still funds AI that completely disregards the notion of "safety" out of the gate. You can argue that those AIs aren't dangerous to begin with, but I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents.
  - comp_throw7 2y ago
    > I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents Note that this is not a valid argument against any argument that superintelligent AI might kill everyone; it's just a character attack.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person. That’s why we don’t let a random Joe fly a 747, there is extensive training, licensing, etc. Do you envision the same for operating AI? In the real world you can’t even drive a moped without licence, registration and insurance. Same goes for access to dangerous chemicals. If AI is dangerous, this is the logical conclusion
- talldayo 2y ago
  I envision that the existence of Air Traffic Control won't inherently stop people from using controlled airspace for hostile purposes. We can idealize what conduct looks like but failure of protocol still happens deliberately or by mistake. The same is going to happen with AI. There will be bad actors, and trying to stop them from using AI for whatever "hostile" purposes it might yield is going to be nigh-impossible.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    But it does work, 9/11 is not a daily occurrence.

consumer451 2y ago

Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?

tbrownaw 2y ago
Massive inflation from the COVID shutdowns and stimulus checks happened.
- consumer451 2y ago
  Do you have any data to support this statement?
N0b8ez 2y ago
I'd also like to know about anyone writing on this subject.
deadbabe 2y ago
Universal basic income? The idea behind that was people would go on to pursue more creative or artistic jobs that don’t prioritize profit after being given a basic income to live off. Unfortunately it won’t work out that way: We see now that AI will mostly take over creative and artistic work and people will have no motivation to pursue art. The only jobs left for humans are hard physical labor and no one seems excited to do that… so you’ll just be giving people basic income to sit around and do nothing all day. Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society.
- consumer451 2y ago
  > Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society. So what are we going to do with all of the excess humans once human productivity jumps one, two, or three more orders of magnitude?