3 ms·
> We've had advanced LLMs for years now and nobody has summoned Yaldabaoth Admitting that as an argument, there is basically nothing that should ever worry you
by staunton 2y ago
> We've had advanced LLMs for years now and nobody has summoned Yaldabaoth
Admitting that as an argument, there is basically nothing that should ever worry you.
For example: Climate change? We've been blowing stuff into the air for centuries. We're going to be fine, no need to change anything. Nuclear war? Hasn't happened yet, therefore it can never happen, we might as well let everyone have a nuke. I could go on.
A small chance of a big harm can be worth worrying about. Many bad things "never" happen because some people make a continuous effort to make sure of that. Many other bad things have never happened before not because they can't happen but "because" there would be noone left to claim they cannot happen.
- talldayo 2y agoI disagree. This is the "millions of monkeys writing shakespeare" situation, but applied to procedural randomness. Tuning AI models and shifting weights might augur out some form of truth eventually, but it's always inferior to informed judgement. It's not an underestimation of technical progress on my behalf; it's the application of risk-management in the real-world. AI is expressly not like a nuke, it's spinning the wheel on a randomizer of language the entire world has had access to for centuries, hoping to discover some self-evident truth that will distinguish itself from the garbage. The "theory" is non-dangerous. The apes aren't getting any closer to blowing up the world, as long as they're stuck on the typewriter. You have to prove to me that an exploit vector exists for a rogue text model. You have to pull up the "Trusting Trust" of AI (of which none exists). The fundamental theory of AI exploitation is "iunno man, reddit said it eats the world" and I don't find it scary at all.