4 ms·

You would in the case that you think you're in an unsafe race to misaligned superintelligence.

by heaney-555 1mo ago

osockwkckwk 1mo ago
Except they clearly aren’t and won’t ever be.
- 0x696C6961 1mo ago
  I don't think it's clear at all.
voidhorse 1mo ago
No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech. Clearly they aren't that scared. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to fork over your wallet, you will do it, because you sense imminent threat to life. Yet somehow we're to believe these people have the equivalent of a technological gun to their heads but are choosing to keep their wallets?
- SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
  > No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech. What you're missing is that they've tried repeatedly to do this over the past years, and the government has repeatedly said that they do not want to put hard regulation on the tech. The previous administration was discussing putting a couple of soft regulations in place; the current administration doesn't want to limit progress at all because they want to stay ahead of China. So the option you're describing just isn't available.
  - voidhorse 1mo ago
    First of all, I do not think they've been pursuing that to the degree that you think. But even assuming that's the case, the natural thing to do in that scenario is to not contribute to the development of the doomsday device. But anthropic's approach seems to be to help build the supposed doomsday device faster? The only generous interpretation is that Anthropic thinks that only they, the people at Anthropic have the morals/intelligence/whatever needed to build the doomsday device ethically, which is basically the perspective of an egoist despot and which should terrify you.
    - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
      The more generous interpretation would be that Anthropic thinks they know how to build powerful AI systems in such a way that they will not become doomsday devices at all. They don't claim to be the only people with this knowledge and do not argue that their competitors should be shut down.
pier25 1mo ago
If you really believe that you wouldn’t be in the race and trying to profit from it in the first place.
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it. I think surveys back this up. We have a situation where the people running the labs are claiming it's a big risk. Outside experts not working for the labs are claiming it's a big risk. It's pretty rare for all the CEOs in the industry to write letters and testify to Congress that they should be regulated and law should be put in place for safety limits.
  - pier25 1mo ago
    > Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it Do they believe they are actively working towards the extinction of humanity?
    - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
      Yes, with nuance. They think there is a significant chance AI will lead to extinction or subordination of humans. I think the averages survey sentiment is that it is about 25% likely to happen. Some think it more likely, others less. There are many reasons why they say they must keep working. For example they think Extinction is more likely if China takes the lead or if they aren't involved in the process. They say if they don't keep developing AI, then someone else will and do a worse job. They actively want National and international regulations to slow or pause development. I don't think the public will take it seriously until we start getting some events with major death tolls. You can ask your llm of choice to dig up surveys, examples, and noteworthy public statements do you want. The point is that the people working closest to this technology are deeply concerned about the implications. Interesting aside, the lead safety expert of anthropic quit earlier this year and said they want to spend their remaining years writing poetry. That might give you a flavor of how people feel inside the industry and how high it goes

You would in the case that you think you're in an unsafe race to misaligned superintelligence.

osockwkckwk 1mo ago

Except they clearly aren’t and won’t ever be.

0x696C6961 1mo ago
I don't think it's clear at all.

voidhorse 1mo ago

No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech. Clearly they aren't that scared. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to fork over your wallet, you will do it, because you sense imminent threat to life. Yet somehow we're to believe these people have the equivalent of a technological gun to their heads but are choosing to keep their wallets?

SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
> No, what you would do is stop your own private development immediately, get in touch with the government by any means necessary, and build a coalition as fast as possible to stop the technology from continuing and put hard regulation (determined by the government, not dario) on the tech. What you're missing is that they've tried repeatedly to do this over the past years, and the government has repeatedly said that they do not want to put hard regulation on the tech. The previous administration was discussing putting a couple of soft regulations in place; the current administration doesn't want to limit progress at all because they want to stay ahead of China. So the option you're describing just isn't available.
- voidhorse 1mo ago
  First of all, I do not think they've been pursuing that to the degree that you think. But even assuming that's the case, the natural thing to do in that scenario is to not contribute to the development of the doomsday device. But anthropic's approach seems to be to help build the supposed doomsday device faster? The only generous interpretation is that Anthropic thinks that only they, the people at Anthropic have the morals/intelligence/whatever needed to build the doomsday device ethically, which is basically the perspective of an egoist despot and which should terrify you.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
    The more generous interpretation would be that Anthropic thinks they know how to build powerful AI systems in such a way that they will not become doomsday devices at all. They don't claim to be the only people with this knowledge and do not argue that their competitors should be shut down.

pier25 1mo ago

If you really believe that you wouldn’t be in the race and trying to profit from it in the first place.

s1artibartfast 1mo ago
Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it. I think surveys back this up. We have a situation where the people running the labs are claiming it's a big risk. Outside experts not working for the labs are claiming it's a big risk. It's pretty rare for all the CEOs in the industry to write letters and testify to Congress that they should be regulated and law should be put in place for safety limits.
- pier25 1mo ago
  > Most of the people I know working at AI Labs believe it Do they believe they are actively working towards the extinction of humanity?
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    Yes, with nuance. They think there is a significant chance AI will lead to extinction or subordination of humans. I think the averages survey sentiment is that it is about 25% likely to happen. Some think it more likely, others less. There are many reasons why they say they must keep working. For example they think Extinction is more likely if China takes the lead or if they aren't involved in the process. They say if they don't keep developing AI, then someone else will and do a worse job. They actively want National and international regulations to slow or pause development. I don't think the public will take it seriously until we start getting some events with major death tolls. You can ask your llm of choice to dig up surveys, examples, and noteworthy public statements do you want. The point is that the people working closest to this technology are deeply concerned about the implications. Interesting aside, the lead safety expert of anthropic quit earlier this year and said they want to spend their remaining years writing poetry. That might give you a flavor of how people feel inside the industry and how high it goes