4 ms·
AI models don't kill people – people kill people
- _ache_ 20d agoOk, so OpenAI is going to compensate RubyGem for the cyberattack on its servers?
- herbst 20d agoWhere can I sign up for compensation for the constant "ddos" from openai? It can't be just me, half the internet needs beefier servers I guess. That all just plays into cloudflare as well (which barely does anything for some reason).
- sillyfluke 20d agoYeah, when someone writes a vague prompt that simply says "Do what it takes to finish X" and the unleashed agents end up doing something lethal and illegal you would think its on the AI company to prevent any illegality and not the vague prompt writer.
- boesboes 20d ago[flagged]
- ericmay 20d agoWell guns don't kill people on their own. They just sit there. AI might actually be different and just kill people on its own.
- rglover 20d agoJust like a gun requires someone to pull the trigger, AI requires someone to prompt it (or kick off the initial loop).
- 9dev 20d agoAnd who is to say that trigger hasn’t long been pulled? How do we know the agents haven’t found a way yet to modify their own code base similar to how Stuxnet manipulated the Iranian centrifuges and their control systems, stealthily recording data across generations?
- hackyhacky 20d agoIf the trigger has already been pulled, then we're off the hook. That genie ain't going back in the bottle! Pop the champagne and order 3 more data centers, pronto.
- rglover 20d agoNo one. But we can take a wild guess that experiments are being done in this direction. And that requires intent and system design that enables the behavior to even happen (i.e., a finger on the trigger).
- deleted 20d ago[deleted]
- infogulch 20d agoTo kill someone with a gun a person has to pull the trigger with the clear intent to kill. The concern with AI, and the purpose of the OG paperclip maximizer thought experiment, is that the outcome could be extremely divergent from the intent of the original person pulling the trigger / sending the prompt. Still more likely that a person types "kill all people" (or something tangential where this is the logical conclusion).
- rglover 20d agoRight. And that's not accidental.
- panta 20d agoWhat if there are already (possibly hidden) loops somewhere, maybe even ultra-slow ones at the inter-generation level? What if some AIs could do that not with so explicit and dramatic actions, but much more subtly, through undetected manipulation at a vast scale level? What if (when) they reached ASI and through billions of micro-decisions manipulated people to do apparently minor choices that appeared innocent in isolation but whose collective outcomes lead to an earlier extinction of the human being (if at some point was determined to be an obstacle)? How could we (as a species) not be outsmarted by an ASI?
- runarberg 20d agoThey do. Even if you exclude homicides and accidents (which you shouldn’t) major depression becomes much much much more deadly if you have access to a gun. Guns make violent crimes (including common stuff like robbery, domestic disputes, or even road rage) much more deadly then it needs to be.
- skeledrew 20d agoWhy would it? Outline a scenario.
- deleted 20d ago[deleted]
- pessimizer 20d agoYeah freeze peach, freedumb of ass-embly, dumb process durr durr rights are so stupid and blame is so mysterious
- rdiddly 20d agoWho the fuck is talking about guns?
- honeycrispy 20d agoAnd just like that, HN became pro-2nd amendment.
- Arubis 20d agoIt wouldn’t actually be _that_ surprising. Tech isn’t progressive or countercultural* anymore. And a lot of how people feel about gun rights/gun control stateside really comes down to whether people identify with the population they perceive as owning guns—are they my people or The Other? (I don’t mean to dismiss that there’s an entirely rationalist argument to be had around whether permitting gun ownership and to what extent is good or bad or multivariate for society; I just don’t think it’s the one most people have. And—I’m fairly sure _my own_ take is colored this way.) * if you know of an industry that’s properly progressive and countercultural and could conceivably pay at least survival wages, sign me right up. I’m good at this one but it no longer fills my cup. I’m tired.
- hackyhacky 20d ago> if you know of an industry that’s properly progressive and countercultural and could conceivably pay at least survival wages * Be a hallucinogenic therapy shaman. * Start a cult. * Work as one of those paid protesters that they always mention on Fox News
- pigpop 20d agoThis seems like an odd take. I remember when a large portion of the people I'd speak with online were very pro 2a while also being countercultural. There was a strong individual liberties/responsibilities, anti-government, pro-decentralization and devolution of power, and dare I say libertarian streak. This isn't an attitude I'd associate with the modern definition of progressive. The big tech era certainly diluted a lot of that but I don't think it ever went away. I haven't seen a huge resurgence in this either so it seems strange to believe that tech is becoming less progressive. From my vantage it is still very far away from where it was in the 80s and 90s. I can agree that it has become much, much less countercultural since it's basically 100% mainstream opinion now.
- onraglanroad 20d agoI'm not sure the submitter, Bender "kill all humans" Rodriguez, is entirely neutral on this.
- bananaflag 20d agoToasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast.
- mattlondon 20d ago10% chance of AI killing us all... But how much of a chance of humans killing all humans? It's not like we are in some unprecedented era of peacefulness. I'd wager the chances of a proper nuclear exchange right now are above 10%. I am not sure how I feel about all this. Yes bad AI might screw some things up. But AI might also find and prevent the software errors that allow such things to even be possible in the first place. And ultimately, even if we are "locked out" from bad AI taking over the internet, we know where the data centers are. It's not like AI can reasonably "escape" since we know it needs DC-scale power, cooling, chips etc to operate at scale. I am pretty sure that if it came to it, we can just cut the fibre to the data centers or cut the power and let the generators run out of diesel and the AI is literally dead.
- functionmouse 20d agothe chances of a proper nuclear exchange when? This week? This year? At any time in the future? The probability approaches 1.
- mattlondon 20d ago"right now"
- deleted 20d ago[deleted]
- ben_w 20d agoI say same about p(doom): Only makes sense in a time interval, otherwise you have to ask how people categorise a hypothetical AI which fails to overcome the heat death of the universe. (When I say mine is 0.1, this is "in my lifetime as it would be in the absence of not-yet-invented life-extending interventions"; there is a higher risk to me from a nuclear exchange).
- throwawayk7h 20d agoNuclear war would not kill us all. Bad ASI would pretend to be good until it could execute a plan to kill everyone all at once, or at least everyone capable of cutting the power. Superintelligent means smarter than everyone put together. If it's smarter than you, it can foresee everything you can, and come up with plans better than I can.
- dd8601fn 20d agoMan if anyone else did any of this there would be guys with guns kicking down doors. I don't understand why these companies automatically get a pass.
- ryandrake 20d agoI know your question is rhetorical, but we know the answer: The USA treats corporations with kid gloves, and there's basically no consequence when a corporation does something that would be illegal or at least considered negligent if a human did it. If you want to kill someone and not face consequences, form a corporation and have the corporation do it indirectly and stochastically.
- runarberg 20d agoI don‘t think Europe, Africa nor (most of) Asia is dealing with crimes committed via AI any differently then USA. I think the problem runs much deeper then USA = bad here. Europe in particular has been laxing their consumer protection for decades now (since the end of the Cold War) and it is very rare that regulators enforce existing regulations on big tech companies. I think the problem is neo-liberal laissez-faire capitalism.
- theideaofcoffee 20d ago> I don't understand why these companies automatically get a pass. Because these companies have lots of dollars and if I treat them sympathetically enough I might get some of their dollars too.
- gmerc 20d agotechbros kill people.
- meerita 20d ago[dead]
- jaydeepg 20d agoSo if we're treating AI like weapons, does that mean we finally get background checks for tech CEOs?
- skeledrew 20d agoFinally, a voice of reason.