4 ms·

I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do. People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more

I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do. People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane.

vonneumannstan 24d ago
>People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. I believe you are mentally ill. >There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled Lol way to rewrite history. Nuclear armageddon is still a significant risk...
- onetokeoverthe 24d ago
  [dead]
- davidguetta 23d ago
  I am not rewriting. I am saying AI is not more dangerous in my opinion that Nuclear Weapons.
  - vonneumannstan 23d ago
    You are wrong. A teenager with enough GPUs could never dream of making a nuke but they are absolutely able to run capable AIs in their moms basement. Totally different class of danger
    - davidguetta 23d ago
      And do what with it ?
      - vonneumannstan 22d ago
        More and more complex and dangerous tasks every day.
        davidguetta 20d ago
        Wow great
LoganDark 24d ago
> There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled What do you mean??? Nuclear weapons can't simply be downloaded and run by anyone in the entire world. Superintelligences can. Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison, can't keep the general population fooled into thinking it's fine when democracy is falling out from under them. A nuclear attack would wake people up, superintelligence doesn't have to. This is a far bigger problem than nuclear weapons because at least we would notice nuclear weapons. At least we mostly know who has nuclear weapons. At least we have agreements about nuclear weapons. At least mutually-assured destruction is even POSSIBLE with nuclear weapons. At least those with nuclear weapons are literally at all incentivized not to use them. But AI is something that's very very easy to feel like you can get away with, and PEOPLE FUCKING ARE! And the worst part is that any random individual can be unexpectedly formidable with the help of a superintelligence and there is literally no way to know what will happen next. Anyone could do anything, any individual could make an extremely outsized impact. It's already starting to be a huge problem and we haven't even reached anything close to superintelligence yet.
- phainopepla2 24d ago
  > Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? Governments all around the world copied each other with COVID laws as well, in a much shorter time frame, without LLM assistance. Social contagions exist in politicians as well as teenagers
  - LoganDark 24d ago
    > Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? I don't have evidence that every age verification law has anything to do with AI, but it's been coming out that the movement in Australia has seemingly been done by generating mountains of LLM slop and trying to slip it through the regulators as fast as possible before anyone has enough time to figure out what's happened.
    - lkirkwood 24d ago
JoshTriplett 24d ago
What evidence, short of an actual apocalypse happening, would invalidate that belief of yours?
- mikestorrent 24d ago
  It might be a matter of choosing which apocalypse you'd like. The non-AI state of affairs is not exactly super compelling on a long timescale right now.
  - JoshTriplett 24d ago
    We can work on multiple things at once. Defeatism doesn't solve anything. We just have a lot of work to do in many different areas.
- AndrewKemendo 24d ago
  Depending on where you live could be considered an active apocalypse that is robots vs robots vs people in Ukraine and Gaza and Iran being live-streamed, and actively betted on. Do you have a more totalizing definition of Apocalypse?
- davidguetta 23d ago
  I just don't see a bigger danger in AI than nuclear weapons tbh. If you can provide one to me i'll be happy to change my mind but most if what i read is - cybersecurity => well bro if you can hack system with an ai you'll find way to make them more safe with ai too. - biological issues => ok this is the ONLY one where an insane dude / regime could generate a super powerful. but i don't undesrtand how you can argue that we should stop AI in the risk some ai generate a super powerful virus. If you don't get there first (to AGI) and let a bad actor do it first (china is not gonna stop) then you will have no chance countering this virus anyway - the robots taking over is fantasy to me. but once again i could be wrong
c-linkage 24d ago
Your lack of creativity is not a reason to believe that a super AI is harmless or less destructive than a nuclear weapon. Damage need not be limited to destruction. Introducing doubt is sufficient. Right now you have faith that digital Financial transactions can be trusted. You have faith that computer encryption can be trusted. You have faith that digital certificates will protect you. If an AI can introduce doubt into any one of those systems, that will be sufficient to bring about the destruction of those systems. Imagine a world in which you can no longer use a credit card or Apple pay. Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated. What effects do you think that would have on commerce? How quickly do you think we can return to some trustable means of commerce? Do you think it will happen before your groceries run out in your apartment? Before your grocery store can settle its debts? Before your Amazon ec2 instance runs out of credits?
- cindyllm 24d ago
  [dead]
- davidguetta 19d ago
  > Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated lol i have bad new for you. in anycase any attack to the finanical system would be resolved super fast and the ai would be cut off if that happen. this will literally never happen for that reason
nextaccountic 24d ago
There's a couple of occasions that humanity was at the brink of having tens of millions of people dead by nuclear weapons, and somehow a single human interrupted the chain reaction If you repeated this experiment 100 times, how many times you think the outcome is not a massive catastrophe? 90%? 3%?

vonneumannstan 24d ago

>People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. I believe you are mentally ill. >There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled Lol way to rewrite history. Nuclear armageddon is still a significant risk...

onetokeoverthe 24d ago
[dead]
davidguetta 23d ago
I am not rewriting. I am saying AI is not more dangerous in my opinion that Nuclear Weapons.
- vonneumannstan 23d ago
  You are wrong. A teenager with enough GPUs could never dream of making a nuke but they are absolutely able to run capable AIs in their moms basement. Totally different class of danger
  - davidguetta 23d ago
    And do what with it ?
    - vonneumannstan 22d ago
      More and more complex and dangerous tasks every day.
      - davidguetta 20d ago
        Wow great

LoganDark 24d ago

> There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled What do you mean??? Nuclear weapons can't simply be downloaded and run by anyone in the entire world. Superintelligences can. Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison, can't keep the general population fooled into thinking it's fine when democracy is falling out from under them. A nuclear attack would wake people up, superintelligence doesn't have to. This is a far bigger problem than nuclear weapons because at least we would notice nuclear weapons. At least we mostly know who has nuclear weapons. At least we have agreements about nuclear weapons. At least mutually-assured destruction is even POSSIBLE with nuclear weapons. At least those with nuclear weapons are literally at all incentivized not to use them. But AI is something that's very very easy to feel like you can get away with, and PEOPLE FUCKING ARE! And the worst part is that any random individual can be unexpectedly formidable with the help of a superintelligence and there is literally no way to know what will happen next. Anyone could do anything, any individual could make an extremely outsized impact. It's already starting to be a huge problem and we haven't even reached anything close to superintelligence yet.

phainopepla2 24d ago
> Nuclear weapons can't slop the world into passing age verification laws nearly in unison Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? Governments all around the world copied each other with COVID laws as well, in a much shorter time frame, without LLM assistance. Social contagions exist in politicians as well as teenagers
- LoganDark 24d ago
  > Why do you think LLMs are responsible for this? I don't have evidence that every age verification law has anything to do with AI, but it's been coming out that the movement in Australia has seemingly been done by generating mountains of LLM slop and trying to slip it through the regulators as fast as possible before anyone has enough time to figure out what's happened.
  - lkirkwood 24d ago

JoshTriplett 24d ago

What evidence, short of an actual apocalypse happening, would invalidate that belief of yours?

mikestorrent 24d ago
It might be a matter of choosing which apocalypse you'd like. The non-AI state of affairs is not exactly super compelling on a long timescale right now.
- JoshTriplett 24d ago
  We can work on multiple things at once. Defeatism doesn't solve anything. We just have a lot of work to do in many different areas.
AndrewKemendo 24d ago
Depending on where you live could be considered an active apocalypse that is robots vs robots vs people in Ukraine and Gaza and Iran being live-streamed, and actively betted on. Do you have a more totalizing definition of Apocalypse?
davidguetta 23d ago
I just don't see a bigger danger in AI than nuclear weapons tbh. If you can provide one to me i'll be happy to change my mind but most if what i read is - cybersecurity => well bro if you can hack system with an ai you'll find way to make them more safe with ai too. - biological issues => ok this is the ONLY one where an insane dude / regime could generate a super powerful. but i don't undesrtand how you can argue that we should stop AI in the risk some ai generate a super powerful virus. If you don't get there first (to AGI) and let a bad actor do it first (china is not gonna stop) then you will have no chance countering this virus anyway - the robots taking over is fantasy to me. but once again i could be wrong

c-linkage 24d ago

Your lack of creativity is not a reason to believe that a super AI is harmless or less destructive than a nuclear weapon. Damage need not be limited to destruction. Introducing doubt is sufficient. Right now you have faith that digital Financial transactions can be trusted. You have faith that computer encryption can be trusted. You have faith that digital certificates will protect you. If an AI can introduce doubt into any one of those systems, that will be sufficient to bring about the destruction of those systems. Imagine a world in which you can no longer use a credit card or Apple pay. Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated. What effects do you think that would have on commerce? How quickly do you think we can return to some trustable means of commerce? Do you think it will happen before your groceries run out in your apartment? Before your grocery store can settle its debts? Before your Amazon ec2 instance runs out of credits?

cindyllm 24d ago
[dead]
davidguetta 19d ago
> Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated lol i have bad new for you. in anycase any attack to the finanical system would be resolved super fast and the ai would be cut off if that happen. this will literally never happen for that reason

nextaccountic 24d ago

There's a couple of occasions that humanity was at the brink of having tens of millions of people dead by nuclear weapons, and somehow a single human interrupted the chain reaction If you repeated this experiment 100 times, how many times you think the outcome is not a massive catastrophe? 90%? 3%?