4 ms·

Do you feel that you are shifting goalposts a bit when quibbling over whether AI will kill everyone in 2030 or 2035? As of 10 years ago, the entire conversatio

Do you feel that you are shifting goalposts a bit when quibbling over whether AI will kill everyone in 2030 or 2035? As of 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed ridiculous. Now we're talking about single digit timeline differences to the singularity or extinction. Come on man.

ewoodrich 1y ago
I'm in my 30s and remember my friend in middle school showing me a website he found with an ominous countdown to Kurzweil's "singularity" in 2045.
- throw310822 1y ago
  > ominous countdown to Kurzweil's "singularity" in 2045 And then it didn't happen?
  - goatlover 1y ago
    Not between 2027 and 2032 anyway.
SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
Well, the first goal was 1997, but Skynet sure screwed that up.
- falcor84 1y ago
  Well, they can still go back in time and change things
sigmaisaletter 1y ago
> 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed ridiculous Bostrom's book[1] is 11 years old. The Basilisk is 15 years old. The Singularity summit was nearly 20 years ago. And Yudkowsky was there for all of it. If you frequented LessWrong in the 2010s, most of this is very very old hat. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang... [2]: Ford (2015) "Our Fear of Artificial Intelligence", MIT Tech Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/11/169210/our-fear-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/11/169210/our-fear-...
- throw310822 1y ago
  It is a bit disquieting though that these predictions instead of being pushed farther away are converging to a time even closer than originally imagined. Some breakthroughs and doomsday scenarios are constantly placed thirty years into the future; this seems to be actually getting closer earlier than imagined.
  - jazzyjackson 1y ago
    For the people imagining it yes For many of us the conversation hasn't gotten any less ridiculous just because computers can talk now
    - throw310822 1y ago
      > just because computers can talk now I find it astounding that some people appear completely unable to grasp what this really means and what the implications are.
      - jazzyjackson 1y ago
        I see them as funhouse mirrors, the kind that reflect your image to make you skinny or fat, except they do it with semantics, big deal. I've never had an interaction with an llm that wasnt just repeating what I said more verbosely, or with compressed fuzzy facts sprinkled in. There is no machine spirit that exists in a box separately from us, it's just a means for people to amplify and multiply their voice into ten thousand sock puppet bot accounts, that's all I'm able to grasp anyway. Curious to hear your experience that's led you to believe something different.
stuaxo 1y ago
I mean... neither of those is going to happen so it's pretty silly.

ewoodrich 1y ago

I'm in my 30s and remember my friend in middle school showing me a website he found with an ominous countdown to Kurzweil's "singularity" in 2045.

throw310822 1y ago
> ominous countdown to Kurzweil's "singularity" in 2045 And then it didn't happen?
- goatlover 1y ago
  Not between 2027 and 2032 anyway.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago

Well, the first goal was 1997, but Skynet sure screwed that up.

falcor84 1y ago
Well, they can still go back in time and change things

sigmaisaletter 1y ago

> 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed ridiculous Bostrom's book[1] is 11 years old. The Basilisk is 15 years old. The Singularity summit was nearly 20 years ago. And Yudkowsky was there for all of it. If you frequented LessWrong in the 2010s, most of this is very very old hat. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dangers,_Strategies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang... [2]: Ford (2015) "Our Fear of Artificial Intelligence", MIT Tech Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/11/169210/our-fear-of-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/11/169210/our-fear-...

throw310822 1y ago
It is a bit disquieting though that these predictions instead of being pushed farther away are converging to a time even closer than originally imagined. Some breakthroughs and doomsday scenarios are constantly placed thirty years into the future; this seems to be actually getting closer earlier than imagined.
- jazzyjackson 1y ago
  For the people imagining it yes For many of us the conversation hasn't gotten any less ridiculous just because computers can talk now
  - throw310822 1y ago
    > just because computers can talk now I find it astounding that some people appear completely unable to grasp what this really means and what the implications are.
    - jazzyjackson 1y ago
      I see them as funhouse mirrors, the kind that reflect your image to make you skinny or fat, except they do it with semantics, big deal. I've never had an interaction with an llm that wasnt just repeating what I said more verbosely, or with compressed fuzzy facts sprinkled in. There is no machine spirit that exists in a box separately from us, it's just a means for people to amplify and multiply their voice into ten thousand sock puppet bot accounts, that's all I'm able to grasp anyway. Curious to hear your experience that's led you to believe something different.

stuaxo 1y ago

I mean... neither of those is going to happen so it's pretty silly.