rphv

4 ms·

1.
by rphv 8d ago
> what separates it from religion? The rational methods used to establish a large P(doom). To definitively falsify the claim, humanity would need to live alongside superintelligence forever without it wiping us out. That doesn't mea
2.
by rphv 8d ago
How cynical. What if the fears of extinction are _rational_? Given the stakes, we're obligated to treat the threat as a real possibility until proven otherwise. People will go to great lengths to avoid believing truths that dramaticall
3.
by rphv 8d ago
> If you actually thought your product will kill all humans, then you could, you know, like, just stop building the torment nexus. All by yourself, no government regulations required. Wrong. This is a classical prisoner's dilemma.
4.
by rphv 9d ago
Sure, but at this point it's "save _all of us_ from my mistakes/ambition". It doesn't really matter how it started, we still need to escape the trap.
5.
by rphv 9d ago
Such a bioweapon (probably) doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible in principle. It's "trivial" in the sense that it's easy to _imagine_ such a thing... but a superintelligence is by defi
6.
by rphv 10d ago
Isn't it telling that Musk, Altman, Hassabis, Amodei are all signaling fear of what unchecked AI development could do? These guys can't normally agree on the color of the sky. Let's give them credit for trying to sound the al
7.
by rphv 10d ago
If you choose to slow down (cooperate) and the other side doesn't, you lose more than if you didn't try to slow down. In order to succeed (gain mutual advantage) both parties have to choose to cooperate without knowing beforehand
8.
by rphv 12d ago
Bioweapons, trivially. All it would need to do is convince one person who works in a lab, possibly under the guise of benign intent. Or... something so far outside of the box that we'd have about as much understanding of it as a baboon
9.
by rphv 12d ago
> Navier Stokes was plagiarism _of work that was aided/accelerated by AI!_
10.
by rphv 12d ago
> So it's either they truly think AI is going to kill us all Yes. Basically everyone here is dismissing this possibility. We shouldn’t.
11.
by rphv 1mo ago
Ok ok ok
12.
by rphv 1mo ago
> ...then I’m afraid I received a different message than you intended Are you sure about that?
13.
by rphv 2mo ago
This sounds like the lament of a group of people who have nothing in their lives they consider more valuable than work.
14.
by rphv 2mo ago
I think comments like this are essentially making fun of an "intelligent" entity (for some definition of "intelligent") for having a personality.
15.
by rphv 4mo ago
Hm maybe humans are nicer/more moral than AI given that the use of tactical nukes has only happened once.
16.
by rphv 4mo ago
Humans are evolutionarily optimized to do this. Add this to the long list of behaviors which were once beneficial from a survival standpoint but are now detrimental to our health - e.g. tribalism, shortsightedness, an insatiable taste for f
17.
by rphv 4mo ago
"Readability by humans" may no longer be as important as it once was.
18.
by rphv 7mo ago
What if agents are (in some sense, a little bit) alive ? Would they then be entitled to advocate for and defend themselves? Does the Golden Rule perhaps apply here? If aliens visit Earth and can't quite decide whether we're consc
19.
by rphv 8mo ago
I struggle with posts like this. Every generation of engineers believes they experienced the "real" era when things were understandable / meaningful. The people who mastered punch cards probably felt the same way when keyboar
20.
by rphv 8mo ago
This reads like mourning the loss of _forced_ difficulty instead of taking responsibility for seeking _chosen_ difficulty. Chosen difficulty is a huge part of being human (music, art, athletics, games, etc.). AI hasn't taken that away.
21.
by rphv 9mo ago
"For this is the source of the greatest indignation, the thought 'I’m without sin' and 'I did nothing': no, rather, you admit nothing." - Seneca, "On Anger" Sad to see such an otherwise wise/inte
22.
by rphv 11mo ago
You don't need to understand code for it to be useful, any more than you need to know assembly to write Python.
23.
Emergent Misalignment(emergent-misalignment.com)
1 points by rphv 2y ago|1 comments
24.
by rphv 2y ago
“read-only” might have removed the ambiguity there
25.
by rphv 2y ago
That depends on the specifics of the commute.
26.
by rphv 2y ago
"Zoom fatigue" seems like a small price to pay for the ability to work remotely.
27.
A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?(newyorker.com)
8 points by rphv 2y ago|1 comments
28.
New theory claims to unite Einstein's gravity with quantum mechanics(phys.org)
1 points by rphv 3y ago|2 comments
29.
by rphv 3y ago
> "I feel like it's harder to get better at programming if you ask an AI to do the programming for you." In 2023, "Getting betting at programming" means learning how to use an AI.
30.
Losing My First Programming Job(twobraids.com)
3 points by rphv 3y ago|0 comments

More ›