4 ms·

Can we move beyond the “man made climate change isn’t real” discourse where you somehow pretend that AI “Is no big deal”. Let’s have a closer look at the actua

Can we move beyond the “man made climate change isn’t real” discourse where you somehow pretend that AI “Is no big deal”. Let’s have a closer look at the actual parent comment hm? > this organization is increasingly looking like a circus, and arguably worse, one that has taken its eye off the ball.

lolinder 2y ago
This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric. (One major difference between the two is that billion-dollar corporations stand to gain quite a bit if they can persuade governments that AI is so dangerous that it needs to be tightly regulated, so they're incentivized to play up the dangers. With climate change it's the opposite: the billion-dollar corporations are incentivized to downplay the risks so they can continue business as usual.)
- wokwokwok 2y ago
  I didn’t say it was like climate change, I said it was like claiming climate change is not real. > There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are …but they do not dispute that the technology is impactful. In fact, anyone who claims it is just “Text continuation”(quote) is being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately downplaying it. > Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric Unlike calling AI “Text continuation”? It’s awfully convenient it’s only lazy internet rhetoric when it’s coming from the other side. Hm? Why is only one side allowed to do that? Would you care to call out the other side for being reductionist? That’s a very high horse you’re sitting on.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- guardiang 2y ago
  Large Language Models are no joke and if you think they are the I suggest you learn how to use them properly. Even if AI doesn't ever go "evil" itself, that doesn't mean people that don't like other people won't use it to more effectively kill those people. All that's really needed is a capable programmer willing to give the LLM the tools it needs, along with funds and access. The LLM could hire humans to do the work it's lacking at. These things are already capable of all that, plus our world went mostly digital during the pandemic... they have easy egress because humans have made it so, even though that was meant for other humans to use. If you don't think they are scary, in the wrong hands, then you are lacking in imagination.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > If you don't think they are scary, in the wrong hands, then you are lacking in imagination. Imagination is a great resource to apply to writing a sci-fi novel. When it comes time to actually predict the future, imagination should be tempered with a solid understanding of the technology and a good understanding of history. Neither of those resources persuades me that AI poses "the greatest of dangers". > Even if AI doesn't ever go "evil" itself, that doesn't mean people that don't like other people won't use it to more effectively kill those people. This I can absolutely see happening, but I don't see LLMs being even in the top ten most dangerous technologies we've invented for more efficient killing. It's a big enough risk that people working on the tech should seriously consider the ethical implications, but not big enough that the rest of us need to lose sleep over it.

lolinder 2y ago

This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric. (One major difference between the two is that billion-dollar corporations stand to gain quite a bit if they can persuade governments that AI is so dangerous that it needs to be tightly regulated, so they're incentivized to play up the dangers. With climate change it's the opposite: the billion-dollar corporations are incentivized to downplay the risks so they can continue business as usual.)

wokwokwok 2y ago
I didn’t say it was like climate change, I said it was like claiming climate change is not real. > There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are …but they do not dispute that the technology is impactful. In fact, anyone who claims it is just “Text continuation”(quote) is being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately downplaying it. > Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism to climate change denial is just lazy internet rhetoric Unlike calling AI “Text continuation”? It’s awfully convenient it’s only lazy internet rhetoric when it’s coming from the other side. Hm? Why is only one side allowed to do that? Would you care to call out the other side for being reductionist? That’s a very high horse you’re sitting on.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
guardiang 2y ago
Large Language Models are no joke and if you think they are the I suggest you learn how to use them properly. Even if AI doesn't ever go "evil" itself, that doesn't mean people that don't like other people won't use it to more effectively kill those people. All that's really needed is a capable programmer willing to give the LLM the tools it needs, along with funds and access. The LLM could hire humans to do the work it's lacking at. These things are already capable of all that, plus our world went mostly digital during the pandemic... they have easy egress because humans have made it so, even though that was meant for other humans to use. If you don't think they are scary, in the wrong hands, then you are lacking in imagination.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > If you don't think they are scary, in the wrong hands, then you are lacking in imagination. Imagination is a great resource to apply to writing a sci-fi novel. When it comes time to actually predict the future, imagination should be tempered with a solid understanding of the technology and a good understanding of history. Neither of those resources persuades me that AI poses "the greatest of dangers". > Even if AI doesn't ever go "evil" itself, that doesn't mean people that don't like other people won't use it to more effectively kill those people. This I can absolutely see happening, but I don't see LLMs being even in the top ten most dangerous technologies we've invented for more efficient killing. It's a big enough risk that people working on the tech should seriously consider the ethical implications, but not big enough that the rest of us need to lose sleep over it.