7 ms·
I'm impressed with how we moved from "AI is dangerous", "Skynet", "don't give AI internet access or we are doomed", "don't let AI escape" to "Hey AI, here is in
by claytonaalves 8mo ago
I'm impressed with how we moved from "AI is dangerous", "Skynet", "don't give AI internet access or we are doomed", "don't let AI escape" to "Hey AI, here is internet, do whatever you want".
- alansaber 8mo agoBecause even really bad autonomous automation is pretty cool. The marketing has always been aimed at the general public who know nothing
- sho_hn 8mo agoIt's not the general public who know nothing that develop and release software. I am not specifically talking about this issue, but do remember that very little bad happens in the world without the active or even willing participation of engineers. We make the tools and structures.
- singpolyma3 8mo agoI mean. The assumption that we would obviously choose to do this is what led to all that SciFi to begin with. No one ever doubted someone would make this choice.
- sixtyj 8mo agoAnd be nice and careful, please. :) Claw to user: Give me your card credentials and bank account. I will be very careful because I have read my skills.md Mac Minis should be offered with some warning, as it is on pack of cigarettes :) Not everybody installs some claw that runs in sandbox/container.
- jryan49 8mo agoI mean we know at this point it's not super intelligent AGI yet, so I guess we don't care.
- nradov 8mo agoThere is no scientific basis to expect that the current approach to AI involving LLMs could ever scale up to super intelligent AGI. Another major breakthrough will be needed first, possibly an entirely new hardware architecture. No one can predict when that will come or what it will look like.
- wiseowise 8mo ago> “we” Bunch of Twitter lunatics and schizos are not “we”.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 8mo agoI am equally if not more grateful than HN is just as unrepresentative.
- squidbeak 8mo agoPeople excited by a new tech's possibilities aren't lunatics and psychos.
- raincole 8mo agoThey mean the > "AI is dangerous", "Skynet", "don't give AI internet access or we are doomed", "don't let AI escape" group. Not the other one.
- trehalose 8mo agoThe ones who give it free reign to run any code it finds on the internet on their own personal computers with no security precautions are maybe getting a little too excited about it.
- simonw 8mo agoThat's one of the main reasons there's a small run on buying Mac Minis.
- snigsnog 8mo agoX*
- wiseowise 8mo agoWhatever you say, Elon.
- bko 8mo agoThere was a small group of doomers and scifi obsessed terminally online ppl that said all these things. Everyone else said its a better Google and can help them write silly haikus. Coders thought it can write a lot of boilerplate code.
- sph 8mo agoThis is exactly why artificial super-intelligences are scary. Not necessarily because of its potential actions, but because humans are stupid, and would readily sell their souls and release it into the wild just for an ounce of greed or popularity. And people who don't see it as an existential problem either don't know how deep human stupidity can run, or are exactly those that would greedily seek a quick profit before the earth is turned into a paperclip factory.
- xrd 8mo agoI love this. Another way of saying it: the problem we should be focused on is not how smart the AI is getting. The problem we should be focused on is how dumb people are getting (or have been for all of eternity) and how they will facilitate and block their own chance of survival. That seems uniquely human but I'm not a ethnobiologist. A corollary to that is that the only real chance for survival is that a plurality of humans need to have a baseline of understanding of these threats, or else the dumb majority will enable the entire eradication of humans. Seems like a variation of Darwin's law, but I always thought that was for single examples. This is applied to the entirety of humanity.
- bwfan123 8mo agoMajority of us are meme-copying automatons who are easily pwned by LLMs. Few of us have learned to exercise critical thinking and understanding from the first assumptions - the kind of thing we are expected to be learn in schools - also the kind of thing that still separates us from machines. A charitable view is that there is a spectrum in there. Now, with AI and social media, there will be an acceleration of this movement to the stupid end of the spectrum.
- phi-go 8mo agoIsn't defining what should not be done by anyone a problem that laws (as in legislation) are for? Though, it's not that I expect that those laws would come in time.
- andsoitis 8mo ago> The problem we should be focused on is how dumb people are getting (or have been for all of eternity) Over the arc of time, I’m not sure that an accurate characterization is that humans have been getting dumber and dumber. If that were true, we must have been super geniuses 3000 years ago! I think what is true is that the human condition and age old questions are still with us and we’re still on the path to trying to figure out ourselves and the cosmos.
- deepsquirrelnet 8mo agoThe DoDs recent beef with Anthropic over their right to restrict how Claude can be used is revealing. > Though Anthropic has maintained that it does not and will not allow its AI systems to be directly used in lethal autonomous weapons or for domestic surveillance Autonomous AI weapons is one of the things the DoD appears to be pursuing. So bring back the Skynet people, because that’s where we apparently are. 1. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/anthropic-ai-defense-war-venezuela-maduro-rcna259603 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/anthropic-ai-defense-w...
- nightski 8mo agoIf you ever doubted it you were fooling yourself. It is inevitable.
- arbuge 8mo agoHumans are inherently curious creatures. The excitement of discovery is a strong driving force that overrides many others, and it can be found across the IQ spectrum. Perhaps not in equal measure across that spectrum, but omnipresent nonetheless.
- wolvesechoes 8mo ago> Humans are inherently curious creatures. You misspelled greedy.
- falcor84 8mo agoWhile the two are closely related, I see a clear distinction between the two drives on their projection onto the explore-exploit axis
- mrtksn 8mo agoI would have said Doomers never win but in this case it was probably just PR strategy to give the impression that AI can do more than it can actually do. The doomers were the makers of AI, that’s enough to tell what a BS is the doomerism :)
- AndrewKemendo 8mo agoEven if hordes of humanoids with “ice” vests start walking through the streets shooting people, the average American is still not going to wake up and do anything
- layla5alive 8mo agoThe average HNer may be at least as bad as the average American on this axis. Lots of big tech apologist and might makes right takes here. Also a lot of "no big deal" style downplaying of risks and externalities
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- api 8mo agoOther than some very askew bizarro rationalists, I don’t think that many people take AI hard takeoff doomerism seriously at face value. Much of the cheerleading for doomerism was large AI companies trying to get regulatory moats erected to shut down open weights AI and other competitors. It was an effort to scare politicians into allowing massive regulatory capture. Turns out AI models do not have strong moats. Making models is more akin to the silicon fab business where your margin is an extreme power law function of how bleeding edge you are. Get a little behind and you are now commodity. General wide breadth frontier models are at least partly interchangeable and if you have issues just adjust their prompts to make them behave as needed. The better the model is the more it can assist in its own commodification.
- GuB-42 8mo agoWe didn't "moved from", both points of view exist. Depending on the news, attention may shifts from one to another. Anyways, I don't expect Skynet to happen. AI-augmented stupidity may be a problem though.
- theptip 8mo ago> we moved from "AI is dangerous" There was never consensus on this. IME the vast majority of people never bought in to this view. Those of us who were making that prediction early on called it exactly like it is: people will hand over their credentials to completely untrustworthy agents and set them loose, people will prompt them to act maximally agentic, and some will even prompt them to roleplay evil murderbots, just for lulz. Most of the dangerous scenarios are orthogonal to the talking points around “are they conscious”, “do they have desires/goals”, etc. - we are making them simulate personas who do, and that’s enough.