kalkin

15 ms·

181.
by kalkin 3y ago
People do exactly this with Ks in policy debate - the same person presenting a K in one round will be defending against it in another round. Nationally competitive debaters don't (in my experience) choose Ks because they believe in the
182.
by kalkin 3y ago
I was responding to: > No rate improvement in chat GPT will make it "decide to kill all the humans" etc. All I'm trying to say is that GPT-style architectures not having "agency" shouldn't be very reassuring
183.
by kalkin 3y ago
> "all were inspired by LW" Evidence? > "no need to care about people living today or real problems in the world" Nobody says this. > "trillions of people in the future" Weird longtermists who talk abo
184.
by kalkin 3y ago
There's nothing in this release that companies didn't agree to as well. Which doesn't prove that they're fundamentally motivated by what's best for humanity but does maybe indicate that it wouldn't be hard for
185.
by kalkin 3y ago
You're not the commenter I was addressing, but it sounds like your position is: AI will eat the entire economy but that's going to go fine as long as it's entirely unregulated so that the magic of the free market can fix any
186.
by kalkin 3y ago
I don't want to argue about Ukraine in this thread but I guess I do respect the consistency of anyone who says both "eh risking nuclear war is no biggie if the first mechanism for it that occurs to me seems unlikely" and &quo
187.
by kalkin 3y ago
Do you think AI is capable of gobbling up "literally all the money" for its owners? If so, doesn't that suggest it's kinda dangerous? FWIW I don't think these voluntary commitments are sufficient or address all of t
188.
by kalkin 3y ago
Personally I don't think AI is very likely to destroy humanity in the next couple of decades. I also don't think that the Ukraine war is very likely to end in a global thermonuclear exchange. But I don't think worrying about
189.
by kalkin 3y ago
People have literally tried to hack together an agent on top of GTP-4 and given it an explicit goal of "kill all humans" for the lulz (ChaosGPT). I don't think that particular case is going anywhere, but assuming that nothing
190.
by kalkin 3y ago
> people who stand to profit from "AI" Some of them, sure, but that doesn't seem to be true of plenty of signatures to the open letter. > the contents of this press release focus mostly on actual problems Given that thi
191.
by kalkin 3y ago
Do you think this is an unsolvable problem for AI? In a world where humans are already being tricked by AI-generated deepfakes and robots can play ping pong and soccer, just to gesture at a couple of possible approaches it might take?
192.
by kalkin 3y ago
I'm a cynic but even so I've been surprised by how the tone of confident dismissal of x-risk as "nonsense" has been completely unaffected by the change in messenger from LW weirdos to Turning Award winners. Like people d
193.
by kalkin 3y ago
There's definitely an audience for debunking x-risk, but probably not one that attracts institutional funding. Being a tech critic in the mode of Timnit Gebru or Emily Bender will get you media attention, but I doubt it's lucrativ
194.
by kalkin 3y ago
I think the 5% thing is at least meaningfully different from zero or "vanishingly small", so there's something to the fact that people are putting the outcome on the table, in a way that eg I don't think any significant
195.
by kalkin 3y ago
I wouldn't describe most of what's in that interview as "very concrete technical" terms - at least when it comes to other people's research programs. More importantly, while it's perfectly reasonable for LeCun
196.
by kalkin 3y ago
Relatedly, it'd be helpful if you could point to folks with good ML research credentials making a detailed case against x-risk. The prominent example of whom I'm aware is Yann LeCun, and what I've seen of his arguments take p
197.
by kalkin 3y ago
Is there a way that you'd recommend somebody outside the field assess your "90%" claim? Elsewhere in the thread you're dismissive of that one survey - which I agree is weak evidence in itself - and you also deny that the
198.
by kalkin 3y ago
Is there a transcript of this available somewhere?
199.
by kalkin 3y ago
It's a bit cheeky of you to be complaining about personal insults while the substance of your OP was the assertion that x-risk worriers are motivated by ego rather than real thought.
200.
by kalkin 3y ago
"If [people who I disagree with] really believed what they said, they'd do [X Y or Z extreme thing]" is almost always a bad argument. Consider the possibility that instead, the people who actually believe the thing you don&#x
201.
by kalkin 3y ago
Wikipedia: "disruptive innovation is innovation that creates a new market and value network or enters at the bottom of an existing market and eventually displaces established market-leading firms, products, and alliances" ChatGPT
202.
by kalkin 3y ago
I can't tell if you're joking or trying to prove a point (after all this is a comment section that's worked itself into a froth about the Orwellian behavior of imaginary people) but I notice that you haven't made this re
203.
by kalkin 3y ago
I don't think "disruption" in the sense of "disruptive innovation" actually is synonymous with just causing chaos, and the latter doesn't seem like a very coherent theory of Altman's motives.
204.
by kalkin 3y ago
I don't quite understand how that's supposed to be consistent with OpenAI lobbying to weaken regulation.
205.
by kalkin 3y ago
"a body of people with the aurhority to act like total cunts in the name of civility" Didn't you say a couple sentences above that the committee who were actually given authority decided there was no CoC violation? It sounds
206.
by kalkin 3y ago
Which people? The imaginary people who are offended by "deadlock"?
207.
by kalkin 3y ago
The sometime political media convention that an action can't be described as a GOP responsibility if the 50 Republican senators are joined in it by 3 Democrats is purely obfuscatory if one is trying to actually understand what sides ar
208.
by kalkin 3y ago
You made that point in our other thread. I'm not informed enough about the landscape of proposals to agree or disagree. But if you're right, I think that's totally consistent with my argument here: people working with open so
209.
by kalkin 3y ago
Accepting that for the sake of argument, have they actually proposed any regulations that would turn that around? I don't even know what would be feasible in that direction; a lot of proposed regulations only seem enforceable as long a
210.
by kalkin 3y ago
That sounds entirely reasonable to me but also not very far from what Altman advocated in that congressional hearing. And FWIW I suspect a lot of folks here would still see it as just a vehicle for regulatory capture, via red tape, even as

More ›