kalkin

18 ms·

211.
by kalkin 3y ago
If I have this right, you think academic signatories are being manipulated by OpenAI and Anthropic, who in turn are being manipulated by the major cloud players, all to sell GPUs? Setting aside the plausibility of this degree of coordinatio
212.
by kalkin 3y ago
Right, you said before that's unrealistic, sorry. But it's not clear to me what you think would be a good idea, which makes it difficult to see what you think would be a serious proposal rather than misdirection. It appears to me
213.
by kalkin 3y ago
Is OpenAI actually losing market to open source models? And have they proposed any specific regulations that would shut down (current or similarly single-device) open source models?
214.
by kalkin 3y ago
Who are "these folks"? OpenAI specifically? I'm not arguing that they're operating in good faith, but it's also not clear to me that them proposing specific regulation would be helpful - there seem to be a lot of pe
215.
by kalkin 3y ago
Many of the signatories of this statement did also sign the statement calling for a halt to big training runs earlier this year.
216.
by kalkin 3y ago
That doesn't actually answer my question, and also seems a bit confused. OpenAI is not in the business of renting GPUs. And I've seen some Google DeepMind people talking about x-risk, but not the other cloud players (or Nvidia or
217.
by kalkin 3y ago
Obviously companies are going to try to shape any regulation to their benefit. What I'm wondering is if people who see x-risk worries as distracting from real risks are in agreement with the narrative I've seen a lot on HN recentl
218.
by kalkin 3y ago
I didn't actually see where it made that argument - that AI intrinsically can't be agentic, or something like that - in this article. Can you point me to it?
219.
by kalkin 3y ago
I have never seen a number for lost nukes higher than the dozens. Do you have a source for enough to "send humanity into extinction many times over"?
220.
by kalkin 3y ago
What do you think of the calls for regulation or licensing of AI?
221.
by kalkin 3y ago
Are there messengers for the AI risk case who you'd consider credible, or is the message so outlandish in your mind that it doesn't really matter who's delivering it?
222.
by kalkin 3y ago
I'm curious if you see this argument as consistent with the narrative that the AI companies are just seeking regulatory capture. It seems to me they're inconsistent ways of understanding what is happening, since concern about misu
223.
by kalkin 3y ago
Can you cite this history of "grossly misrepresenting" for some of the prominent academics on the list? Honestly I'm a little skeptical that you could accurately attribute your scare-quoted "nearly sentient" to even
224.
by kalkin 3y ago
"nuclear weapons are no big deal actually" is just a wild place to get as a result of arguing against AI risk. Although I guess Eliezer Yudkowsky would agree! (On grounds that nukes won't kill literally everyone while AI will
225.
by kalkin 3y ago
This could be Google's motivation (although note that Google is not actually the market leader right now) but the risk could still be real. Most of the signatories are academics, for one thing, including two who won Turing awards for M
226.
by kalkin 3y ago
Two of the three Turing award winners for ML: AI x-risk is real. HN commenters: let's be smarter than that eh? Unlike academia, those of us who hang out at news.ycombinator.com are not captured by the tech industry and can see what&#x2
227.
by kalkin 3y ago
Thanks for this clarification. I think the post conflates "fast takeoff" and "any existential risk to worry about from AI" a bit, which is fair enough since Bostrom does the same. Some of the arguments apply just to the
228.
by kalkin 3y ago
It does seem likely there's more to come, and what if anything can be done to mitigate the impact on the city's economy is an interesting question. Reasoning about that probably requires some careful disentangling of the different
229.
by kalkin 3y ago
The current generation of AIs are scary to a lot of the initiated, too - both for what they can do now, and what their trajectory of improvement implies. If you take seriously any downsides, whether misinformation or surveillance or launder
230.
by kalkin 3y ago
Here you talk as if you don't think we know how to build AGI, how far away it is, or how many of the components we already have, which is reasonable. But that's different than saying confidently it's nowhere close. I notice y
231.
by kalkin 3y ago
Our failure to align economic entities that are made out of people to human values, despite most of the people actually making up those entities being decent and not sociopathic at a personal level, is not very reassuring with respect to ou
232.
by kalkin 3y ago
I'm curious what financial incentive you think Marcus or Russell has for hype. For Hinton I suppose it would be the Google shares he likely retains after quitting? You might be right about the next five years. I hope you are! But you h
233.
by kalkin 3y ago
You're doing pretty much exactly the dance here: https://twitter.com/natosaichek/status/1657422437951369218 Note that this is agreeing with a Gary Marcus Tweet - Gary Marcus not exactly being an AI hypester.
234.
by kalkin 3y ago
> The human being did. I'm not sure whether you're making an argument about moral responsibility ultimately resting with humans - in which case I agree - or whether you're arguing that we'll be safe because nobody wil
235.
by kalkin 3y ago
"First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them" And this will always be true? You repeat this claim several times in slightly varied phrasing without ever giving
236.
by kalkin 3y ago
If you want to put yourself in the position of cutting through the hype, conceptual clarity matters. But given your opening and final sentences you seem to have entirely missed the point about distinguishing between intelligence and sentien
237.
by kalkin 3y ago
LLama is meaningfully behind the state of the art AFAIK, so the cat isn't fully out of the bag in that sense. Whether a GPT4 or better model has public weights in 2-3 years may in fact depend on government regulation.
238.
by kalkin 3y ago
Self-awareness and intelligence (in the sense in which AI has any and will likely have more in five years) are not the same thing. My cats have more self awareness than ChatGPT but the latter can do a lot of intellectual tasks that nonhuman
239.
by kalkin 3y ago
Consciousness is about experience. Intelligence is about capability. Dogs are conscious, but can't add two digit numbers. ChatGPT is not conscious (almost certainly, although we don't really understand consciousness well enough to
240.
by kalkin 3y ago
The article conflates AGI with "consciousness", which is a really basic misunderstanding. Pretty discrediting.

More ›