4 ms·
Money.
by Foobar8568 1y ago
Money.
- _Algernon_ 1y agoWhat money is in it for the "rationalist", AI doom crowd that build up the narrative Altman wants for free?
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoSuggesting that the AI doom crowd is building up a narrative for Altman is sort of like saying the hippies protesting nuclear weapons are in bed with the arms makers because they're hyping up the destructive potential of hydrogen bombs.
- _Algernon_ 1y agoThat analogy falls flat. For one we have seen the destructive power of hydrogen bombs through nuclear tests. Nuclear bombs are a proven, real threat that exists now. AGI is the boogeyman under the bed, that somehow ends up never being there when you are looking for it.
- bigyabai 1y agoIt's a real negotiating tactic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinkmanship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinkmanship If you convince people that AGI is dangerous to humanity and inevitable, then you can force people to agree with outrageous, unnecessary investments to reach the perceived goal first. This exactly happened during the Cold War when Congress was thrown into hysterics by estimates of Soviet ballistic missile numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoChief AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky's latest book on this subject is literally called "If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies". I don't think he's secretly trying to persuade people to make investments to reach this goal first.
- staticman2 1y agoThe grandparent asked what money was in it for rationalists. You're saying an AI researcher selling AI Doom books can't be profiting off hype about AI?
- dwohnitmok 1y agoThis reminds me a lot of climate skeptics pointing out that climate researchers stand to make money off books about climate change. Selling AI doom books nets considerably less money than actually working on AI (easily an order of magnitude or two). Whatever hangups I have with Yudkowsky, I'm very confident he's not doing it for the money (or even prestige; being an AI thought leader at a lab gives you a built-in audience).
- bigyabai 1y agoThe inverse is true, though - climate skeptics are oftentimes paid by the (very rich) petrol lobby to espouse skepticism. It's not an asinine attack, just an insecure one from an audience that also overwhelmingly accepts money in exchange for astroturfing opinions. The clear fallacy in their polemic being that ad-hominem attacks aren't addressing the point people care about. It's a distraction from global warming, which is the petrol lobby's end goal. Yudkowsky's rhetoric is sabotaged by his ridiculous forecasts that present zero supporting evidence of his claims. It's the same broken shtick as Cory Doctorow or Vitalik Buterin - grandiose observations that resemble fiction more than reality. He can scare people, if he demonstrates the causal proof that any of his claims are even possible. Instead he uses this detachment to create nonexistent boogeymen for his foreign policy commentary that would make Tom Clancy blush.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoWhat sort of unsupported ridiculous forecast do you mean? Can you point to one?
- staticman2 1y ago