againstapples

3 ms·

1.
by againstapples 7d ago
Why can’t it have intent? How does it solve problems without intending to?
2.
by againstapples 8d ago
What about their beliefs is morally abhorrent?
3.
by againstapples 8d ago
I don’t see why I would judge a whole group based on isolated examples?
4.
by againstapples 8d ago
I agree they’re kinda weird but are they really that bad?
5.
by againstapples 9d ago
Is it really that difficult to conclude that something vastly smarter than us might be dangerous? People say things like "We'll just unplug it" but even a human trapped in a computer would have enough sense not to get themsel
6.
by againstapples 9d ago
Once something has happened in a movie it becomes science fiction and therefore can't happen in reality
7.
by againstapples 9d ago
I was reading about ozone layer depletion this morning, and it seems like history is repeating itself again. > The Rowland–Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The Chair of
8.
by againstapples 9d ago
How long do you think it will be before AI can do all the things you listed?
9.
by againstapples 10d ago
Is this a good place to ask why no one seems to be worried that recursive self improvement might be dangerous? To me that seems like a really bad idea but I’m interested to hear the pro-RSI side of things.
10.
by againstapples 10d ago
> the models generalize well only on tasks within a small neighborhood of the specific tasks they've been trained on, and even then with severe caveats. the frontier labs have developed a general recipe to teach models almost any sp
11.
by againstapples 13d ago
That’s true, but the issue is still that we don’t have any LLM or any other kind of AI that follows laws perfectly to begin with. If we had AI that did exactly what we told it and nothing else I’d feel much more optimistic about things, I j
12.
by againstapples 13d ago
If we’re considering an LLM advanced enough to actually lower carbon emissions to zero, it is probably capable enough to do things like lobbying against those laws. In any case there’s still the problem of getting to actually do what it’s t
13.
by againstapples 13d ago
There must have been thousands of people who built or did work related to nuclear weapons in the Cold War, people are just really good at rationalising away probabilistic dangers with unclear consequences, especially when there’s a correspo
14.
by againstapples 14d ago
What makes you believe it’s fearmongering and not genuine concern?
15.
by againstapples 14d ago
I’m guessing you make the autocomplete point because you believe there is an upper limit to what that kind of system can achive? Can I ask what the limit would be?
16.
by againstapples 14d ago
Why would we assume AI will learn to solve millennium prize problems but will struggle with the easy part of doing the explaining? I think it’s too easy to predict that models 5 years from now will have the same limitations as the they do n
17.
by againstapples 15d ago
At this rate AI will be doing all of the mathematics within 5 years, I don’t see why a mathematician would be worried about anything other than that at this point?
18.
by againstapples 15d ago
At this rate AI will be doing all of the mathematics within 5 years, I don’t see why a mathematician would be worried about anything other than that at this point?
19.
by againstapples 15d ago
What would be gained with government id that would make this worthwhile? If people are already putting all their personal details into the LLM as well as all their work, do they really need id to know who someone is? Seems more likely they