4 ms·

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
        Ok, I think I might get a heart attack sooner or later, it's a possibility, although not very high. If I said so, you might ask me if I saw a doctor or something similar to make me suspect that, and that's my issue with him. He's a Sci fi writer that's scared of technology without a grasp of how it works, and that's OK. He can talk about what he fears, and that's OK. It still doesn't mean we should take him seriously just because. My pet peeve is that when trying to make laws regarding Ai - at least in Europe - some considerations were done regarding how it worked, what it was (...), how it's being talked in academic literature. I had a lawyer in a course explaining that, and while not perfect you eventually settle on something that more or less is reasonable. With yudkowsky, you have a guy that is scared of nanotech and yada yada. Sure, he might be right. But if I had to act based on something, it would look much more the eu process to make laws and less the "Ai will totally kill us from now to 30 years trust me". Perhaps now I'm more clear And don't get me started with the rationalist stuff that just assumes pain is linear and yada yada
        hollerith 1y ago
        Eliezer has written extensively on why he thinks AI research is going to kill us all. He has also done 3-hour-long interviews on the subject which are published on Youtube.
        amarcheschi 1y ago
amarcheschi 1y ago
That's more or less what I was referring to, but I should have been more clear

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
        Ok, I think I might get a heart attack sooner or later, it's a possibility, although not very high. If I said so, you might ask me if I saw a doctor or something similar to make me suspect that, and that's my issue with him. He's a Sci fi writer that's scared of technology without a grasp of how it works, and that's OK. He can talk about what he fears, and that's OK. It still doesn't mean we should take him seriously just because. My pet peeve is that when trying to make laws regarding Ai - at least in Europe - some considerations were done regarding how it worked, what it was (...), how it's being talked in academic literature. I had a lawyer in a course explaining that, and while not perfect you eventually settle on something that more or less is reasonable. With yudkowsky, you have a guy that is scared of nanotech and yada yada. Sure, he might be right. But if I had to act based on something, it would look much more the eu process to make laws and less the "Ai will totally kill us from now to 30 years trust me". Perhaps now I'm more clear And don't get me started with the rationalist stuff that just assumes pain is linear and yada yada
        hollerith 1y ago
        Eliezer has written extensively on why he thinks AI research is going to kill us all. He has also done 3-hour-long interviews on the subject which are published on Youtube.
        amarcheschi 1y ago

amarcheschi 1y ago

That's more or less what I was referring to, but I should have been more clear