4 ms·

The phrase "grift behind AI doomerism" suggests that either the book author or the reviewer (or both) don't have a clue. AI will cause real and huge problems.

_vertigo 1y ago
I think that depends on whether your definition of “doomerism” is the same as theirs.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
amarcheschi 1y ago
But the main figures behind the Ai doomerism are nutjobs either applying bayesian math in a bad way or right wing extremist believing that black people are inferior for genetics reason (I know it's an overreach that doesn't represent all the population of Ai doomers, but the most important people in that sphere are represented by what I said). Furthermore, they're people without a history in academia or a specific past in philosophy. Although i do agree that investigating Ai dangers should be done, but in an academic context
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- foobiekr 1y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It’s clearly a reference to the zizians and MIRI and Bayesian nutjobs is an absolutely correct assessment.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Keep on telling yourself that.
  - derektank 1y ago
    Stuart Russell and Geoffrey Hinton have both expressed concerns that AI could lead to human extinction and neither are nutjobs
    - amarcheschi 1y ago
      I wasn't explicitly referring to the more "sane" people expressing doubts regarding Ai. Hinton at least says that other issues in Ai should be dealt with, rather than just being an Ai doomer who only fears Ai takeover he actually realizes that there are other current issues as well At this point, how many times should we have been dead for eliezer?
      - hollerith 1y ago
        Like almost all the other doomers, Eliezer never claimed to know which generation of AIs would undergo a sudden increase in capability resulting in our extinction or some other doom, not with any specificity beyond saying that it would probably happen some time in the next few decades unless the AI project is stopped.
        amarcheschi 1y ago
        Idk, a few years ago when chatgpt came out he was saying things like "if we're still alive in 3 years (...)" where chatgpt 3.5 was still a glorified transformer. And modern llms still are. It's the constant fear mongering that stings my nerves. And well, I'm not surprised nobody knows which generation of Ai could undergo an increase causing our extinction, it's not even sure if there could exist such a thing, let alone know which generation
        hollerith 1y ago
        He has been saying for a couple of years that it is possible any day now, but in the same breath he has always added that it is more likely 10 or 20 or 30 years from now than it is today. It is not a contradiction be confident of the outcome while remaining very uncertain of the timing. If an AI is created and deployed that is clearly much "better at reality" than people are (and human organizations are, e.g., the FBI), that can discover new scientific laws and invent new technologies and be very persuasive, and we survive, then he will have been proved wrong.
  - amarcheschi 1y ago
    That's more or less what I was referring to, but I should have been more clear
lazzlazzlazz 1y ago
Cars have killed millions of people. Add to that the consequences of electricity, industrialization, urbanization, and even capitalism itself. But billions and billions of people are not only better off -- living lives of outrageous luxury when measured against recent history -- but they wouldn't have existed at all. Everything good comes with tradeoffs. AI will likely also kill millions but will create and support and improve the lives of billions (if not trillions on a long enough time scale).
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  That's one vision of how things play out. But I do think it's possible that AI ends up killing every last person, in which case I think "everything good comes with tradeoffs" is a bit too much of an understatement.
  - gusmally 1y ago
    Even if AI doesn't kill every last person, I think it will almost certainly increase the wealth gap. I agree that the tradeoffs will most likely not be worth it.
  - arduanika 1y ago
    Ah, so if that's what you mean by AI downsides, then you might find this useful: https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
    - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
      I came to this conclusion on my own, so, no.

_vertigo 1y ago

I think that depends on whether your definition of “doomerism” is the same as theirs.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

amarcheschi 1y ago

But the main figures behind the Ai doomerism are nutjobs either applying bayesian math in a bad way or right wing extremist believing that black people are inferior for genetics reason (I know it's an overreach that doesn't represent all the population of Ai doomers, but the most important people in that sphere are represented by what I said). Furthermore, they're people without a history in academia or a specific past in philosophy. Although i do agree that investigating Ai dangers should be done, but in an academic context

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
foobiekr 1y ago
Why is this downvoted? It’s clearly a reference to the zizians and MIRI and Bayesian nutjobs is an absolutely correct assessment.
- hollerith 1y ago
  Keep on telling yourself that.
- derektank 1y ago
  Stuart Russell and Geoffrey Hinton have both expressed concerns that AI could lead to human extinction and neither are nutjobs
  - amarcheschi 1y ago
    I wasn't explicitly referring to the more "sane" people expressing doubts regarding Ai. Hinton at least says that other issues in Ai should be dealt with, rather than just being an Ai doomer who only fears Ai takeover he actually realizes that there are other current issues as well At this point, how many times should we have been dead for eliezer?
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Like almost all the other doomers, Eliezer never claimed to know which generation of AIs would undergo a sudden increase in capability resulting in our extinction or some other doom, not with any specificity beyond saying that it would probably happen some time in the next few decades unless the AI project is stopped.
      - amarcheschi 1y ago
        Idk, a few years ago when chatgpt came out he was saying things like "if we're still alive in 3 years (...)" where chatgpt 3.5 was still a glorified transformer. And modern llms still are. It's the constant fear mongering that stings my nerves. And well, I'm not surprised nobody knows which generation of Ai could undergo an increase causing our extinction, it's not even sure if there could exist such a thing, let alone know which generation
        hollerith 1y ago
        He has been saying for a couple of years that it is possible any day now, but in the same breath he has always added that it is more likely 10 or 20 or 30 years from now than it is today. It is not a contradiction be confident of the outcome while remaining very uncertain of the timing. If an AI is created and deployed that is clearly much "better at reality" than people are (and human organizations are, e.g., the FBI), that can discover new scientific laws and invent new technologies and be very persuasive, and we survive, then he will have been proved wrong.
- amarcheschi 1y ago
  That's more or less what I was referring to, but I should have been more clear

lazzlazzlazz 1y ago

Cars have killed millions of people. Add to that the consequences of electricity, industrialization, urbanization, and even capitalism itself. But billions and billions of people are not only better off -- living lives of outrageous luxury when measured against recent history -- but they wouldn't have existed at all. Everything good comes with tradeoffs. AI will likely also kill millions but will create and support and improve the lives of billions (if not trillions on a long enough time scale).

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
That's one vision of how things play out. But I do think it's possible that AI ends up killing every last person, in which case I think "everything good comes with tradeoffs" is a bit too much of an understatement.
- gusmally 1y ago
  Even if AI doesn't kill every last person, I think it will almost certainly increase the wealth gap. I agree that the tradeoffs will most likely not be worth it.
- arduanika 1y ago
  Ah, so if that's what you mean by AI downsides, then you might find this useful: https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult https://www.wikihow.com/Leave-a-Cult
  - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
    I came to this conclusion on my own, so, no.