3 ms·
If you’re building something that is dangerous enough that it needs a kill switch in case it goes rogue, then you should delete it immediately. Or is it a lie?
by sdcfgy 16d ago
If you’re building something that is dangerous enough that it needs a kill switch in case it goes rogue, then you should delete it immediately.
Or is it a lie?
- AndrewKemendo 16d agoTrains have had dead man switches since the beginning Should we ban trains?
- dfxm12 16d agoAI is already proven dangerous enough to be ruining individual lives, pushing people towards suicide, feeding their psychoses, etc. However, whether the concerns from the article are a lie or not is secondary to the fact that these conversations are convenient for AI companies. These types of discussions serve AI companies in a few ways: A company owned kill switch gives them leverage. Altman is using discussions around safety as an excuse for not being ready for an IPO yet. It also provides free marketing that overstates the abilities of AI.
- Razengan 16d agoThe internet is already proven dangerous enough to be ruining individual lives, pushing people towards suicide, feeding their psychoses, etc.
- stratos123 16d agoThere's an obvious coordination problem here: if you decide to stop your research for safety and your competitors don't, you have just burned your company without actually improving the world's outcomes. There's also an obvious solution to this problem: convince the government to force both you and your competitors to pay more attention to safety. Anthropic is doing that.
- bigstrat2003 16d agoIf you do something evil because "others will do it if I don't, so it may as well be me", you are a bad person. So that isn't exactly a compelling defense of what Anthropic is doing. They are either insincere (because they don't actually believe AI is dangerous), or evil (because they do believe it but keep making it anyway). There is no middle ground here.