undefined | Better HN

0 pointskalkin3y ago0 comments

> 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 will do that with a model smart enough to be dangerous - in which case I'm extremely dubious. Plenty of people are already trying to make "agents" with GPT4 just for fun, and that's with a model that's not actively trying to manipulate them.

> actual real harms occurring now

Sure, but it's possible for there to be real harms now and also future potential harms of larger scope. Luckily many of the same potential policies - e.g. mandating public registration of large models, safety standards enforced by third-party audits, restrictions on allowed uses, etc - would plausibly be helpful for both.

> science fiction stories

There's no law of nature that says if something has appeared in a science fiction story, it can't appear in reality.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

srslack3y ago· 3 in thread

The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy.

>e.g. mandating public registration of large models, safety standards enforced by third-party audits, restrictions on allowed uses, etc - would plausibly be helpful for both.

No, that's bullshit as well. That's what these companies want, and why they're hyping up the angle of how powerful their crap is. That's regulatory capture.

>There's no law of nature that says if something has appeared in a science fiction story, it can't appear in reality.

I'm saying that their fears are painted by the fiction, instead of reality. No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work. Instead it's just "The lights come on and AI does machiavellian shit and copies itself to all of the smartphones on earth. QED."

kalkinOP3y 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.

But of course there are some people for whom playing the role of real-no-bs-computer-knower is so attractive that no number of people like him, Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell etc publicly worrying about x-risk will impact their tone of dismissive certitude. Are you one of those people?

srslack3y ago

All of those people have financial incentives to hype it. How curious that there's this great and very probable X-risk, yet they aren't going to stop their contributing to a potential X-risk.

Dismissive of what? Science fiction stories?

If there's anything to focus on, maybe focus on potential job displacement (not elimination) from cheap language tasks and generative capabilities in general.

I'm betting on this: the Overton window of Artificial Intelligence will shift in the next five years where the current cream-of-the-crop has been delegated to machine learning yet again, it's just accepted. It augments humans where it makes sense, the hype wave has subsided and everyone has stopped hammering it into their products where it doesn't, and we're no closer to the undefinable "AGI", let alone something that produces X-risk, global scale.

3 more replies

concordDance3y ago

> The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy.

I don't think it really matters who was responsible if the X-risk fears come to pass, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up.

> No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work.

To use the famous argument: I don't know what moves Magnus Carlson will make when he plays against me, but I can nonetheless predict the eventual outcome.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse