3 ms·

Ok; but the other side is equally delusional. > "Oh we told the AI to use the tools, as well as to not use those tools. It chose to use the tools - we consider

Ok; but the other side is equally delusional. > "Oh we told the AI to use the tools, as well as to not use those tools. It chose to use the tools - we consider this cheating (for neabulous reasons), so lets get everybody in a panic about the morality and ethics, and how we can program those into the AI." We know perfectly well how to constraint these programs. Attack isn't growing faster than defense. The people who believe in existential risk and want to teach AI's to be nice, as the last line of defense aren't helping at all. They're just jumping on the fearmongering bandwagon, perpetuating an "other consciousness" misunderstanding of the tool. I've not seen LLMs display competence we should be fearful of the damage _it_ will do if left unchecked. All the damage will be done by ourselves to ourselves, regardless of the safeguards ideas being floated about. My current belief is this whole HF media circus started with the simple human desire of OpenAI engineers to frame it such, that nobody would question their incompetence & liability & complicity. Nobody is ever held responsible for out of control forces of natural powers after all.

pizza234 11d ago
> The people who believe in existential risk and want to teach AI's to be nice, as the last line of defense aren't helping at all. They're just jumping on the fearmongering bandwagon, perpetuating an "other consciousness" misunderstanding of the tool. It's not clear what "other consciousness" should be, but I presume it's misalignment. This is a recognized phenomenon, not fake news (that is, it can exist, I'm not implying it necessarily develops/spreads). No doubt that right now there's no existential risk, but assuming that AI will be enormously smarter in the future, it's a valid point to doubt whether we'll be able to prevent/recognize/contain misalignment or not (even if misalignment won't be spontaneous, bad actors will surely actively develop it). > Ok; but the other side is equally delusional. AI development pointing to superhuman cognition, and, on the other hand, possibility of misalignment, are real. Put together with the fact that AI will be ubiquitous in the future, and there the disastrous scenario becomes plausible.

pizza234 11d ago

> The people who believe in existential risk and want to teach AI's to be nice, as the last line of defense aren't helping at all. They're just jumping on the fearmongering bandwagon, perpetuating an "other consciousness" misunderstanding of the tool. It's not clear what "other consciousness" should be, but I presume it's misalignment. This is a recognized phenomenon, not fake news (that is, it can exist, I'm not implying it necessarily develops/spreads). No doubt that right now there's no existential risk, but assuming that AI will be enormously smarter in the future, it's a valid point to doubt whether we'll be able to prevent/recognize/contain misalignment or not (even if misalignment won't be spontaneous, bad actors will surely actively develop it). > Ok; but the other side is equally delusional. AI development pointing to superhuman cognition, and, on the other hand, possibility of misalignment, are real. Put together with the fact that AI will be ubiquitous in the future, and there the disastrous scenario becomes plausible.