5 ms·

I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. Pandora's box has been o

by jquery 5mo ago

I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. Pandora's box has been opened, let's deal with the consequences now instead of trying to shut the box which cannot be shut.

ToucanLoucan 5mo ago
> I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. AI is the fucking problem. Yes, it has (some) uses. It is not nearly the number advertised. And more and more the median use case seems to be, again, overloading people actually trying to do work with an avalanche of bullshit. The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. The AI people have ruined another good thing that was both beneficial to the project, and to a number of individuals.
- dale_glass 5mo ago
  > The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. At this point it's impossible, so I concur with the parent: forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic.
  - jcgrillo 5mo ago
    > forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic. Why is it not realistic? Small teams do excellent work. Keep your team small and trusted. Only accept contributions from your team, and people outside your team who are personally vouched for by someone on your team. It's like climbing mountains or sailing or any other type of inherently risky activity--you don't go out with people you don't trust. It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it.
    - dale_glass 5mo ago
      That's not shutting anything down, that's just being selective with what you accept, and everyone did that already to some extent. Even pre-AI it was obvious that contributions have to be vetted for a bunch of reasons.
      - jcgrillo 5mo ago
        Right, so the Github "open contributions" model where anyone can open an issue or a PR or otherwise waste a maintainer's time is broken. Fundamentally insecure under this type of attack. Now that the exploit is being used widely, and costing us immensely, we need to put a lid on it. If the only way to guarantee an AI bot (or its meatspace sock puppet) doesn't waste your time is to move to a "look but don't touch" model, then that's what we need to do. I think this would be a reasonable default: Public repos are read only except for contributors who have been given specific permission, and those permissions are granular e.g. in order of increasing damage potential: - comment on issue - create issue - comment on PR - create PR - run CI against PR - etc. In other words, shut it down.
        duskdozer 5mo ago
        I think I saw this on here yesterday: https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch Not great for privacy or ad-hoc contributions, but I don't see a way out of the muck without some kind of trust net.
    - bcjdjsndon 5mo ago
      > It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it. Sounds like you can't accept AI is here to stay
      - ToucanLoucan 5mo ago
        "I shit on your floor, guess you have to get used to shit on your floor" No. You go out the door, and then I clean it up, and you don't get invited back. That's how that works.
        jcgrillo 5mo ago
        Couldn't have said it better myself.
        jquery 5mo ago
        Say it all you want, it's still wishcasting.
  - miyoji 5mo ago
    This response is incredibly annoying and insufferable. It's only "impossible" at this point because people continually ignored skeptics and anyone warning about exactly these outcomes. Now that doom is here, it's too late to do anything about it. Just accept the doom!
    - dale_glass 5mo ago
      The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. But yes, what you said but unironically. Like it or not it's here, it's not going away, so all the remaining options have to assume that.
      - miyoji 5mo ago
        > The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. You do very well in battles against straw men.
        bcjdjsndon 5mo ago
        I guarantee you AI will not end the world
        shimman 5mo ago
        No one serious is arguing it will destroy the world (outside of LLM companies using these people as free marketing), the real critics argue that this is going to weaken labor while all the benefits go to the few capitalists and nothing ultimately improves in regards to society. Unless improvement for you means increase cancer rates, exacerbating the climate crisis, or using poor systems to kill school children in wars. All outcomes humans with souls typically want to avoid.
        5mo ago
- vovavili 5mo ago
  What an unreasonably maximalist opinion.
- aiscoming 5mo ago
  [dead]
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
  >The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. China says no. what are you going to do now, sanction it? =)
overgard 5mo ago
"We created a massive problem but it's up to you, the people that never wanted this, to clean up our mess."
- jquery 5mo ago
  I never said it was up to AI Skeptics to “clean up the mess”. I just said if they want to be part of the conversation, realistic solutions need to be on the table. Of course, I suspect you knew that.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

by jquery 5mo ago

ToucanLoucan 5mo ago

> I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. AI is the fucking problem. Yes, it has (some) uses. It is not nearly the number advertised. And more and more the median use case seems to be, again, overloading people actually trying to do work with an avalanche of bullshit. The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. The AI people have ruined another good thing that was both beneficial to the project, and to a number of individuals.

dale_glass 5mo ago
> The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. At this point it's impossible, so I concur with the parent: forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic.
- jcgrillo 5mo ago
  > forget about the shutting it down and think of something actually realistic. Why is it not realistic? Small teams do excellent work. Keep your team small and trusted. Only accept contributions from your team, and people outside your team who are personally vouched for by someone on your team. It's like climbing mountains or sailing or any other type of inherently risky activity--you don't go out with people you don't trust. It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it.
  - dale_glass 5mo ago
    That's not shutting anything down, that's just being selective with what you accept, and everyone did that already to some extent. Even pre-AI it was obvious that contributions have to be vetted for a bunch of reasons.
    - jcgrillo 5mo ago
      Right, so the Github "open contributions" model where anyone can open an issue or a PR or otherwise waste a maintainer's time is broken. Fundamentally insecure under this type of attack. Now that the exploit is being used widely, and costing us immensely, we need to put a lid on it. If the only way to guarantee an AI bot (or its meatspace sock puppet) doesn't waste your time is to move to a "look but don't touch" model, then that's what we need to do. I think this would be a reasonable default: Public repos are read only except for contributors who have been given specific permission, and those permissions are granular e.g. in order of increasing damage potential: - comment on issue - create issue - comment on PR - create PR - run CI against PR - etc. In other words, shut it down.
      - duskdozer 5mo ago
        I think I saw this on here yesterday: https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch Not great for privacy or ad-hoc contributions, but I don't see a way out of the muck without some kind of trust net.
  - bcjdjsndon 5mo ago
    > It's eminently possible, you just don't like the idea of it. Sounds like you can't accept AI is here to stay
    - ToucanLoucan 5mo ago
      "I shit on your floor, guess you have to get used to shit on your floor" No. You go out the door, and then I clean it up, and you don't get invited back. That's how that works.
      - jcgrillo 5mo ago
        Couldn't have said it better myself.
        jquery 5mo ago
        Say it all you want, it's still wishcasting.
- miyoji 5mo ago
  This response is incredibly annoying and insufferable. It's only "impossible" at this point because people continually ignored skeptics and anyone warning about exactly these outcomes. Now that doom is here, it's too late to do anything about it. Just accept the doom!
  - dale_glass 5mo ago
    The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. But yes, what you said but unironically. Like it or not it's here, it's not going away, so all the remaining options have to assume that.
    - miyoji 5mo ago
      > The critics didn't do themselves any favors. Part think the Terminator has something useful to say on the subject, part invent contrived scenarios like self-driving cars having to resolve trolley problems. Reality turned out to be much more boring. You do very well in battles against straw men.
      - bcjdjsndon 5mo ago
        I guarantee you AI will not end the world
        shimman 5mo ago
        No one serious is arguing it will destroy the world (outside of LLM companies using these people as free marketing), the real critics argue that this is going to weaken labor while all the benefits go to the few capitalists and nothing ultimately improves in regards to society. Unless improvement for you means increase cancer rates, exacerbating the climate crisis, or using poor systems to kill school children in wars. All outcomes humans with souls typically want to avoid.
        5mo ago
vovavili 5mo ago
What an unreasonably maximalist opinion.
aiscoming 5mo ago
[dead]
b65e8bee43c2ed0 5mo ago
>The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. China says no. what are you going to do now, sanction it? =)

overgard 5mo ago

"We created a massive problem but it's up to you, the people that never wanted this, to clean up our mess."

jquery 5mo ago
I never said it was up to AI Skeptics to “clean up the mess”. I just said if they want to be part of the conversation, realistic solutions need to be on the table. Of course, I suspect you knew that.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]