afthonos

4 ms·

1.
by afthonos 5d ago
Unlike communicating via glass panels processing information at near-lightspeed, relayed by fiber optic cables laid down across thousands of miles of ocean floor, processed in datacenters filled to the brim with transistors etched at atom-s
2.
by afthonos 6d ago
I notice a giant leap between “hacking and exfiltrating” and ”making public”. Why would the AI do that for you? Are you just that charming?
3.
by afthonos 7d ago
I agree on complicated ideas, and on facts (because obviously different sources will selectively report facts, even if they’re trying to be fair). The ideas here are not complicated. The argument is three sentences.
4.
by afthonos 8d ago
No one is saying we have it, they’re saying they’re building it. And what mechanism to control these drones, which are autonomous or remote-controlled machines, do you imagine that humans will be able to use, but AI won’t? And what in the h
5.
by afthonos 9d ago
It’s an excuse not to think, not an argument. The doomer argument is straightforward: a powerful AI will have goals. If those goals don’t include the welfare of humanity, a sufficiently powerful AI will kill us either by accident, by indiff
6.
by afthonos 9d ago
I feel your frustration, but it’s just normal human behavior, no need for a psyop. A lot of people are emotionally invested in AI being a fad, useless, easily controlled, a capitalist boondoggle, a circular financing scam, a bubble about to
7.
by afthonos 9d ago
Predicting the next word in context led to Open AI losing control of one of its research clusters. I’m not sure what “just” is doing in that sentence; most of my regression analyses don’t do that.
8.
by afthonos 9d ago
It’s not, that’s definitely one path to doom. But everyone racing as fast as possible is another, far surer, path to doom. We should avoid both.
9.
by afthonos 9d ago
Yes, one part of the argument was that it would be hard to explain human values (and while it seemingly turned out easier than I thought as well, it’s hard to check for sure). An equally important part was that the AI wouldn’t care about th
10.
by afthonos 14d ago
Agreed. Ellison’s path to that future went through AI.
11.
by afthonos 14d ago
It is always money — but it isn’t always only money. They are not asking for anything that will prevent them from making money in the future, but they are asking for help stopping the runaway train they’re on. These are compatible reque
12.
by afthonos 14d ago
Worse than extinction?
13.
by afthonos 14d ago
You are incorrectly cynical. They are telling you things are bad, and because you refuse to countenance they could be worse, you assume they must be better to comply with your mandate to disbelieve. A true cynic looks at the statements by
14.
by afthonos 23d ago
Important to note that KataGo was double-handicapped. 20 seconds per move maximum; it couldn’t read deep. Against an amateur, it doesn’t matter, but against a historically strong pro it matters a lot.
15.
by afthonos 1mo ago
Anthropomorphizing helps to create a lower bound for damage. If you can imagine a bad person doing it, AI will be at least that bad, unless proven otherwise. I think referring to AI as a tool obscures that, because we are not used to tool
16.
by afthonos 1mo ago
I think we may be using different words to describe the same concept. You think of it as them not being “people“, and I think of it as them not being “aligned“. But fundamentally, the problem is they are entities that take unpredictable act
17.
by afthonos 1mo ago
The dead astronauts were relieved to have been killed by something incapable of malice. As I’m sure will we.
18.
by afthonos 1mo ago
Obviously (a).
19.
by afthonos 2mo ago
> Are you asking if I can scare myself with a made-up hypothetical that overwhelms reason with emotion? No. I am asking if you are able to articulate at least one example of the “very very compelling evidence” you demand. Or do you want
20.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I can work with that analogy! You could, and yet you don’t. OpenAI’s model could, and did. If every human, given knowledge of Newtonian mechanics, went around blowing up bridges, yeah, I would consider knowing Newtonian mechanics dangerou
21.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I wonder if you also believe that everyone should have nuclear weapons? And if not, why not? The main argument I can see against it is that nuclear weapons are “purely offensive”, but as we can see since 1945, nuclear weapons are actually d
22.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I can give many examples of where I think they’ve been vindicated. But actually, the real question is: what would suffice to convince you ? Can you come up with a scenario that is horrific enough to you and that isn’t so far gone that
23.
by afthonos 2mo ago
With an AI model and what army?
24.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I am truly at a loss to communicate with someone who genuinely believes that knowing Newtonian physics and being able to hack into any target at will are the same thing.
25.
by afthonos 3mo ago
I think it’s possible to observe something and be sure that it’s true in aggregate without being able to accuse any one individual of it. I propose that in those cases, bringing it up in response to an individual is not a good move. It does
26.
by afthonos 3mo ago
That is a true statement. Here is another one: Some people like to talk about “some people” snidely, instead of just coming out and saying “GP is bloodthirsty and gets a little thrill [etc].” Because of course, that’s what they mean , but
27.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Indeed. I can’t find it, but I swear I knew after reading the announcement, without opening the model card. It stood out because it was so weird. Maybe they changed it before the first snapshot, maybe something else happened, I don’t know.
28.
by afthonos 4mo ago
It was in the announcement, too. I’m 99% sure they edited it after they changed their mind, because I knew about it from reading that, and never opened the model card.
29.
by afthonos 4mo ago
They didn’t get caught, they explicitly said they would do that in the announcement. I think it was both bad and a weird idea, but it certainly wasn’t sneaky.
30.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social

More ›