3 ms·

[flagged]

by andsoitis 9mo ago

[flagged]

reactordev 9mo ago
You would need empathy for that.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 9mo ago
  Ethics would suffice. Or a basic humanistic education. Unfortunately, that is precisely what these people seem to lack.
  - GuestFAUniverse 9mo ago
    Poison Ivy.
atomicnumber3 9mo ago
Is it possible to become wealthy like this AND value human life? Why does it turn out they every single billionaire is also some combination of narcissist, pedophile, petty tyrant, or just utter freakazoid?
- samename 9mo ago
  Power corrupts the mind. They live in a different world
- while_true_ 9mo ago
  Top philanthropists include Jamsetji Tata (donated $102.4 billion), Bill and Melinda Gates ($75.8 billion), Warren Buffett (is pledging to donate 99% of his wealth). Andrew Carnegie gave away 85% of his wealth -- including construction of over 2,500 public libraries.
  - grogenaut 9mo ago
    Carnegie did that to white wash his public opinion while he worked his workers non stop and to mutilation or death. When are you going to the library when you work 996 or more?
  - nozzlegear 9mo ago
    Bill Gates is not a great example given the recent revelations surrounding him and the nature of his divorce in the latest batch of the Epstein files.
    - atomicnumber3 9mo ago
      Yes. Colors his philanthropy. While I hope Warren Buffet isn't cut from the same cloth, the odds are looking quite bad. It would be nice to know there are some out there who can just be smart, get rich, and then NOT damn your immortal soul. But it's looking grim.
      - lokar 9mo ago
        Experience would point to extreme wealth changing almost everyone who gains it, for the worse.
  - WillAdams 9mo ago
    Gates took more than he gave, for example: https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html
  - ossa-ma 9mo ago
    [flagged]
  - saulpw 9mo ago
    Only one billionaire has ever given away enough money while he was alive to not be a billionaire. Ever. Pledges don't count. Also Warren Buffet giving away 99% of his wealth still keeps him a billionaire.
    - lokar 9mo ago
      Chouinard?
      - saulpw 9mo ago
        Chuck Feeney Also I stand corrected, Chouinard is the other instance.
        lokar 9mo ago
        Still very rare
- bombcar 9mo ago
  Because most people who are not some combination of the above tap out somewhere around the $100m-$500m mark or earlier, because they don't have any reason to get more.
bitwize 9mo ago
The AI "movement" is hermetic magick. The goal is to bring about God in silico, because if you're not involved in so doing, God may punish you for eternity when he emerges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk Next to the might and terror of the machine God, mere humans are, individually, indeed as nothing...
- ben_w 9mo ago
  Most of the people working on AI, and even those on the specific sub-domain of AI where Roko's basilisk was coined which isn't the majority of the field by a long shot, have been rolling their eyes at Roko's basilisk since the moment it was coined. Even a brief moment of thought should reveal that, even if you think the scenario likely, there are an infinite number of potential equivalent basilisks and you'd need to pick the correct one. I'm less worried about Roko's basilisk*, and rather more worried about the people who say this: I think you have said in fact, and I'm gonna quote, development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. End quote. You may have had in mind the effect on, on jobs, which is really my biggest nightmare in the long term. - https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-ai/ https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-sub... Because this is clearly not taking the words themselves at face value; either you should dig in and say "so why should we allow it at all then?" or you should dismiss it as "I think you're making stuff up, why should we believe you about anything?", but not misread such a blunt statement. (If you follow the link, Altman's response is… not one I find satisfying). * despite the people who do take it seriously, as such personalities have always been around and seldom cause big issues by themselves; only if AI gets competent enough to help them do this do they become a problem, but by that point hopefully it's also competent enough to help everyone stop them
  - salawat 9mo ago
    >only if AI gets competent enough to help them do this do they become a problem, but by that point hopefully it's also competent enough to help everyone stop them Tell me something; have you ever built something you later regret having built? Like you look back at it, accept you did, but realize that if you'd just been a bit wiser/knowledgeable about the world you wouldn't have done it? In the moment you're doing the thing you'll regret, you don't know in that moment anything better to do until the unpleasant consequences manifest, granting you experience. If you haven't experienced that yet; fine, but we shouldn't be betting on existential problems with "hopefully" if we can at all avoid it. Especially when that hopefully clause involves something we're making the decision to craft, with means and methods we don't fully understand/aren't predictively ahead of, and knowing that the way these methods work have a tendency to generate/provide the basis to generate a thoroughly sycophantic construct.
ben_w 9mo ago
He may well be as you say, but nothing in this video is evidence of that. To the extent he's a slimy sociopath, he's not openly twirling his metaphorical moustache here, and he's a lot better at hiding villainy than most of the better-known slimy sociopaths in the world today (for comparison, Musk actually tweeted "If this works, I’m treating myself to a volcano lair. It’s time.", this isn't even at that level. He's responding to all the people very upset about how much energy AI takes to train. That said, a quick over-estimate of human "training" cost is 2500 kcal/day * 20 years = 21.21 MWh[0], which is on the low end of the estimates I've seen for even one single 8 billion parameter model. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2500+kcal%2Fday+*+20+years+in+MWh https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2500+kcal%2Fday+*+20+ye...
dyauspitr 9mo ago
Well if you consider the theoretical goal of a machine that has all the answers then you’d understand why he thinks that way.
eli 9mo ago
I’m not sure it’s possible to conclude what hey actually believes from public statements. I do not trust him to tell the truth about anything related to AI.
iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
To be fair, it is not just him. There is an entire caste of people across the organizations that see employees as a problem. It is absolutely fascinating to watch, because those people tend to be somewhere in management class and appear to derive a fair amount of happiness from said managing ( and we can argue whether those skills are any good ).
- lokar 9mo ago
  This goes beyond just employees. His comparison devalues the basic value of a human life.

[flagged]

reactordev 9mo ago

You would need empathy for that.

ahf8Aithaex7Nai 9mo ago
Ethics would suffice. Or a basic humanistic education. Unfortunately, that is precisely what these people seem to lack.
- GuestFAUniverse 9mo ago
  Poison Ivy.

atomicnumber3 9mo ago

Is it possible to become wealthy like this AND value human life? Why does it turn out they every single billionaire is also some combination of narcissist, pedophile, petty tyrant, or just utter freakazoid?

samename 9mo ago
Power corrupts the mind. They live in a different world
while_true_ 9mo ago
Top philanthropists include Jamsetji Tata (donated $102.4 billion), Bill and Melinda Gates ($75.8 billion), Warren Buffett (is pledging to donate 99% of his wealth). Andrew Carnegie gave away 85% of his wealth -- including construction of over 2,500 public libraries.
- grogenaut 9mo ago
  Carnegie did that to white wash his public opinion while he worked his workers non stop and to mutilation or death. When are you going to the library when you work 996 or more?
- nozzlegear 9mo ago
  Bill Gates is not a great example given the recent revelations surrounding him and the nature of his divorce in the latest batch of the Epstein files.
  - atomicnumber3 9mo ago
    Yes. Colors his philanthropy. While I hope Warren Buffet isn't cut from the same cloth, the odds are looking quite bad. It would be nice to know there are some out there who can just be smart, get rich, and then NOT damn your immortal soul. But it's looking grim.
    - lokar 9mo ago
      Experience would point to extreme wealth changing almost everyone who gains it, for the worse.
- WillAdams 9mo ago
  Gates took more than he gave, for example: https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html
- ossa-ma 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- saulpw 9mo ago
  Only one billionaire has ever given away enough money while he was alive to not be a billionaire. Ever. Pledges don't count. Also Warren Buffet giving away 99% of his wealth still keeps him a billionaire.
  - lokar 9mo ago
    Chouinard?
    - saulpw 9mo ago
      Chuck Feeney Also I stand corrected, Chouinard is the other instance.
      - lokar 9mo ago
        Still very rare
bombcar 9mo ago
Because most people who are not some combination of the above tap out somewhere around the $100m-$500m mark or earlier, because they don't have any reason to get more.

bitwize 9mo ago

The AI "movement" is hermetic magick. The goal is to bring about God in silico, because if you're not involved in so doing, God may punish you for eternity when he emerges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk Next to the might and terror of the machine God, mere humans are, individually, indeed as nothing...

ben_w 9mo ago
Most of the people working on AI, and even those on the specific sub-domain of AI where Roko's basilisk was coined which isn't the majority of the field by a long shot, have been rolling their eyes at Roko's basilisk since the moment it was coined. Even a brief moment of thought should reveal that, even if you think the scenario likely, there are an infinite number of potential equivalent basilisks and you'd need to pick the correct one. I'm less worried about Roko's basilisk*, and rather more worried about the people who say this: I think you have said in fact, and I'm gonna quote, development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. End quote. You may have had in mind the effect on, on jobs, which is really my biggest nightmare in the long term. - https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-subcommittee-hearing-on-oversight-of-ai/ https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-senate-judiciary-sub... Because this is clearly not taking the words themselves at face value; either you should dig in and say "so why should we allow it at all then?" or you should dismiss it as "I think you're making stuff up, why should we believe you about anything?", but not misread such a blunt statement. (If you follow the link, Altman's response is… not one I find satisfying). * despite the people who do take it seriously, as such personalities have always been around and seldom cause big issues by themselves; only if AI gets competent enough to help them do this do they become a problem, but by that point hopefully it's also competent enough to help everyone stop them
- salawat 9mo ago
  >only if AI gets competent enough to help them do this do they become a problem, but by that point hopefully it's also competent enough to help everyone stop them Tell me something; have you ever built something you later regret having built? Like you look back at it, accept you did, but realize that if you'd just been a bit wiser/knowledgeable about the world you wouldn't have done it? In the moment you're doing the thing you'll regret, you don't know in that moment anything better to do until the unpleasant consequences manifest, granting you experience. If you haven't experienced that yet; fine, but we shouldn't be betting on existential problems with "hopefully" if we can at all avoid it. Especially when that hopefully clause involves something we're making the decision to craft, with means and methods we don't fully understand/aren't predictively ahead of, and knowing that the way these methods work have a tendency to generate/provide the basis to generate a thoroughly sycophantic construct.

ben_w 9mo ago

He may well be as you say, but nothing in this video is evidence of that. To the extent he's a slimy sociopath, he's not openly twirling his metaphorical moustache here, and he's a lot better at hiding villainy than most of the better-known slimy sociopaths in the world today (for comparison, Musk actually tweeted "If this works, I’m treating myself to a volcano lair. It’s time.", this isn't even at that level. He's responding to all the people very upset about how much energy AI takes to train. That said, a quick over-estimate of human "training" cost is 2500 kcal/day * 20 years = 21.21 MWh[0], which is on the low end of the estimates I've seen for even one single 8 billion parameter model. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2500+kcal%2Fday+*+20+years+in+MWh https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=2500+kcal%2Fday+*+20+ye...

dyauspitr 9mo ago

Well if you consider the theoretical goal of a machine that has all the answers then you’d understand why he thinks that way.

eli 9mo ago

I’m not sure it’s possible to conclude what hey actually believes from public statements. I do not trust him to tell the truth about anything related to AI.

iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago

To be fair, it is not just him. There is an entire caste of people across the organizations that see employees as a problem. It is absolutely fascinating to watch, because those people tend to be somewhere in management class and appear to derive a fair amount of happiness from said managing ( and we can argue whether those skills are any good ).

lokar 9mo ago
This goes beyond just employees. His comparison devalues the basic value of a human life.