4 ms·
Who is this "we"? Supposing a single person disagrees and decides to give AI more control and gains a very significant advantage by that, what then? I think pe
by constantcrying 1y ago
Who is this "we"? Supposing a single person disagrees and decides to give AI more control and gains a very significant advantage by that, what then?
I think people keep forgetting that "Selection" can be excessively cruel.
- daveguy 1y agoYou say that like AI has some sort of autonomy. It doesn't.
- constantcrying 1y agoDoesn't matter.
- selfhoster11 1y agoIt doesn't, by default. All it takes is a capable enough model without rails, and a single user instructing it to act autonomously as its primary goal.
- hamburga 1y agoAll it takes for somebody to nuke Atlanta is an atom bomb and an airplane and somebody willing to fly the plane. I’m being facetious but there ARE ways to decide/act as a society and as subgroups within society that we want to disallow and punish and select out qualities of AIs that we think are unethical.
- daveguy 1y agoThe point is, AI is not able to act capably or autonomously. If someone tells it to "act autonomously" it'll either sit like a lump or flail until the power runs out.
- hamburga 1y agoA single person acting in isolation (no friends, no colleagues, no customers) has very little agency. While theoretically a single person could release smallpox back into civilization, we have collectively selected it out very effectively.
- constantcrying 1y agoThe question is only relevant if AI is a significant force amplifier. If it is not, it is an unthreatening tool, whose usage should be largely unrestricted, this is the case now. If that ever changes then there is the question what to do with it and at a certain level of power an individual decision would have impact, if sufficiently amplified.
- hamburga 1y agoAI is definitely a significant force multiplier in many areas. Still, an individual in total isolation has limited agency.