3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.