ben_w

8 ms·

91.
by ben_w 29d ago
Different people can be scared by dofferent things, or multiple things. I wouldn't invest (more) in any of the big names today. Even without either p(doom) or bubble concerns, nobody knows how to operationalise "safety" in AI
92.
by ben_w 29d ago
There's a lot of ways it might go. Won't be too surprised if the next Democrat leadership throws the book at Musk; and give how unpopular Data Centres are generally (and how uninterested Republicans seem to be in EVs), only mildly
93.
by ben_w 29d ago
The evidence is the acts the AI has already done.
94.
by ben_w 29d ago
They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who co
95.
by ben_w 29d ago
Sure. I don't personally trust any of the CEOs, and I have yet to hear a single person (in general, not just on this topic) who trusts Altman.
96.
by ben_w 29d ago
You're simultaneously overestimating what was observable in the 70s climate research, and ignoring all the actual research and evaluation test results for AI today. I don't expect people to be familiar with more than "trust m
97.
by ben_w 29d ago
Eh. If I was rank ordering, I's put: worst [AM, {very large gap …}, al Qaeda, …, USG today, …, China, …, USG under Obama, {very large gap …}, The Culture] best.
98.
by ben_w 29d ago
Not only but also.
99.
by ben_w 29d ago
There's plenty of things to worry about, and plenty of people to do the worrying.
100.
by ben_w 29d ago
Over the Atlantic? Nah, the problem was it was very expensive and not a great experience for the people rich enough to afford it. The US company trying to bring supersonic back are not only focussed on the flight speed, but also the entire
101.
by ben_w 29d ago
There's plenty of people who think greenhouse gas/global warming campaigns against fossil fuels are "exaggerating", that "earth was warm/the climate changed in the past", that a fee degrees isn't bad,
102.
by ben_w 29d ago
> Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? Selection effect. Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is staying in/joining/founding new AI research lab" does that. Everyone who thinks &quo
103.
by ben_w 29d ago
> But the (b|tr)illionare class? I'd assume they have access to enough legal services to make even the government careful of trampling their first amendment rights. Is the national security gag order process so strong that the gover
104.
by ben_w 29d ago
I know people at METR and Anthropic. When they tell you they're worried the tech they're working on may kill everyone despite their best efforts, perhaps believe them.
105.
by ben_w 29d ago
The world isn't the American political nonsense. > What will be funny to me is that normal tech people outside the frontier model companies are about to find themselves without a home on this topic. Already happened, just from agent
106.
by ben_w 29d ago
Unclear how much more efficient they can be. Bleeding edge models are putting the desk-job competencies of multiple professional fields into something with as many parameters as a single large rodent has synapses.
107.
by ben_w 29d ago
> Supersonic passenger aircraft were operated profitably Were they? IIRC joint project by British and French national airlines, they expected to sell loads, hardly anyone wanted to buy the planes, the two airlines kept them flying out of
108.
by ben_w 29d ago
Unclear. How much is China learning from open models? Or the other way around, how much is the US losing worldwide mindshare by refusing to allow non-Americans access to bleeding-edge models and letting China fill in the gap? (Playing catch
109.
by ben_w 29d ago
The current state of alignment is that we don't know how to make it only as bad as Pol Pot was made by his parents, teachers, genetics, circumstances, etc. This remains true regardless of if it is or isn't kept away from the publi
110.
by ben_w 1mo ago
If people already knew about Goodhart's Law, I wouldn't feel it necessay to give illustrated examples.
111.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> Also no idea what viruses and cancers have to do with this. Cancer is surely very poor reproductively because they never spread to other hosts The host's survival is not the benchmark of the reproductive unit, which are the cancer
112.
by ben_w 1mo ago
Benchmaxxing is the default case, and always has been. It's really, really difficult to avoid it even when you care to stop yourself; and it's not even just a problem in machine learning, it's the standard failure mode of all
113.
by ben_w 1mo ago
Normally, businesses spend a lot of money saying "no, our products are 100% safe" and get very upset with people who say they are not. You are literally looking at someone who resigned because the company is acting unsafely, where
114.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> First I've heard of this, in what case was free speech used to justify a right to show a specific ad? All of them? This is pretty much the default case. If Meta or Google or whoever say "we don't want to show this ad&quo
115.
by ben_w 1mo ago
Ryanair are the only ones that I have flown with who often depart roughly when they were supposed to land.
116.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> Last I checked usernames aren't a public good. You're part of a social network and they get to set the policy. I'd count this as "strong-armed into this". The giants want all the benefits of being public spaces
117.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> Yes, Ryanair stole 100 euro from me once, but if next flight is 50 to 250 euro cheaper than competition... I swore off them a few years ago. Plane started boarding around when it was due to land. We got on, seeing about 3cm of snow aro
118.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> Is there something more we need to understand? Only if you're interested in the specific failure modes that LLMs have. That's all this story is.
119.
by ben_w 1mo ago
If we were actively trying to make this "win" in the Stockfish sense, it would likely be 99%. We are trying to make a system that doesn't want to "win" in the sense, but wants to "win" by being helpful, ha
120.
by ben_w 1mo ago
> I’ve yet to see a rational argument for how we go from super intelligent LLMs to human extinction or extermination. Much the same way our ancestors went from a super intelligent primate to this: https://en.wikipedia.org&#x2F

More ›