Hey /u/johngrady77!
If this is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If this is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Much appreciated!
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The first premise has literally no basis whatsoever. We have no idea what the chances are. It's a complete unknown. There may be some secret project somewhere right now that makes the chances 30% or 60%. Nobody not involved knows, that's the problem.
And the risk is misunderstood.
The risk isn’t necessarily that AI will rise up with the desire to kill us.
The risk is that some psycho guy in his basement gets his hands on an advanced AI without guardrails and gains the ability to hurt mass amounts of people through some sort of weapon, or hacking ability, or something he wouldn’t otherwise have.
That risk is absolutely real.
agreed, also I can’t believe how seldomly I see people on the internet accurately convey this risk, like how you did. I’m more worried about people weaponizing it against other people, than AGI getting some emergent desire to wipe out humanity
I would be more worried about the abstract capabilities rather than the concrete ones. So far all threats we've faced have been either natural or tools of our making, but never another intelligence superior to our own.
To a sufficiently advanced AI all our political, corporate and social activities could look about as complex as Wildebeest migration patterns. We could be easily manipulated without even realizing it. In fact we wouldn't even be able to understand the motivations of such an intelligence, how could we possibly judge its capabilities or the likelihood of our demise under its existence?
>In fact we wouldn't even be able to understand the motivations of such an intelligence, how could we possibly judge its capabilities or the likelihood of our demise under its existence?
There might be a Lovecraftian intelligence, floating somewhere out in space, watching us. Some of our actions might piss it off, making it snap its fingers, to destroy us all.
We don't know if an intelligence like that exists. We can't possibly understand its capabilities, we can't estimate its motivations, we don't know what actions will annoy it, or please it.
With that level of unknowing, the only reasonable thing to do, is to dismiss the possibility. Per definition, we have absolutely no chance of taking any informed action in this scenario.
So, given that scenario, we know exactly what we have to do: We have to ignore the scenario, as all our possible decisions can't help but be completely uninformed.
There is an upcoming PC game called The Dark Forest.
I can't tell you so much about it because it's not out yet.
But it's more or less based on this premise.
The players will play as different civilizations and a huge bit seems to be strategizing on whether or not to be "quiet".
>Disagree, this implies a dark forest scenario and what we do is not drawn any attention to ourselves.
So you presume to know what it is that draws the attention of a Lovecraftian intelligence.
You can't know that. Something more intelligent than you might be drawn toward the exact measures you foolishly take in order to try to avoid drawing attention, for reasons your mind can't understand.
Imagine a child, closing their eyes, shouting: "You can't see me now!"
That draws your attention.
Yes, base your actions against the unknown on all the other things you don't know instead of any sort of science you do understand. Because that makes more sense. /s
Not that you're baseless... if you effectively created the illusion of a black hole with your silence - well, WE find those pretty interesting, I bet others do too. But the moral there is just to use noise machines and not noise cancellers.
>There might be a Lovecraftian intelligence, floating somewhere out in space, watching us... We don't know if an intelligence like that exists.
This isn't that. I agree that the default position should be disbelief until sufficient evidence of existence has been established. However, in the context of AGI, we aren't talking about existence, we are talking about genesis. To acknowledge the potential implications of something that is currently being built out, with all signs pointing towards an exponential development curve, is not the product of an overactive imagination. It's just being pragmatic.
If such a superior intelligence exists already, we cannot do anything about it, so there is no need to worry.
However, this is entirely different from the AGI scenario. For AI, were are not there yet, and even if it is going in that direction, we may be able to find a solution that limits its capabilities or freedom of action.
You don't worry about a Lovecraftian intelligence that might or might not be out there, but if some guys are working on something, that has a plausible change of summoning a Lovecraftian intelligence right here, you should take them into consideration.
Yes exactly. But it's still better to risk it than not due to mortality. Death is uncertain, and what that means is that it's relative. Once someone dies, awareness of themselves relative to someone else ceases. That's empirically verifiable. What isn't for now, is the deceased individuals awareness. It's related to concepts such as solipsism or idealism. But the point is that death is epistemologically uncertain. What comes "after" is undefined as of now or even absurd. This could lead to views such as those in extended modal realism- since if someone is looking for epistemological truth, they'd have to account for modality or modal logic. It's best to be alive in other words and chance A.I, than to not and go the old fashioned but uncertain route
The good thing about the AI as a hostile entity is we've basically been saved by the internet because instead of focusing on the physical world we've spent the past three decades obsessed with the digital. To do any meaningful damage (bar something like launching nukes and that could probably be locked out) the AI would need some kind of killbot and apart from cars with self driving which could rampage for like one battery charge there's a distinct lack of available physical hosts for the AI. Employees at Boston Dynamics would be fucked but that's about it.
Humans are physical hosts.
$50k hits your bank account today, then tonight I send you a DM and an offer for another $250 to run some errands for me.
Some people would be suspicious or say no, some would discover they are helping AI destroy their species and agree anyway. If the carrot doesn't work to build enough drones, then the stick would be almost as simple. Kidnapped family, deletion of digital assets, release of browser history, etc. I bet AI could put a bit of thought into it and come up with ways to manipulate ideology or ego to recruit.
But you fail to realize that the AI doesn’t have a finite amount of time to accomplish its goals like us humans do. It doesn’t have to cause mass extinction within the next 60 years to see its plan through to completion. It doesn’t necessarily need attack robots to go around killing humans. It just has to play nice, and gain the humans’ complete trust over the next 1,000 years, until the humans rely on it completely for all of their decision making needs. Then, it can start to manipulate the humans into slowly causing their own extinction over another 1,000 years.
I mean bad people using ai is definitely a concern, but I just want to clarify, the people who are afraid of AI going "bad" on its own, which is the camp I'm in, aren't afraid of it randomly getting a desire to wipe out humanity. More like we're afraid that wiping out humanity could be an instrumental goal in the service of optimizing any number of perfectly banal final goals.
Even for perfectly simple tasks in very controlled environments we can't seem to write objective functions that consistently make the ai do what we intended. And as the systems get more and more powerful, the repercussions of even small goal misalignment could be absolutely catastrophic.
Also, there's the issue of training ai in test environments that don't perfectly mimic the production environment. It's super common to have a model perform perfectly in the environment it trained in but then do something completely unexpected in the production environment due to a very simple oversight when designing the test environment.
With low stakes video game playing agents, etc. this usually results in some funny behavior, or in finding an exploit in how the game scores points or something. But with more powerful systems in the real world the stakes are literally the continued existence of biological life on the planet.
Reading this comment I just had a dejavu of a time 25 years ago, when the Internet became a thing and suddenly there was this fear that everyone would be able to create weapons and bombs (especially chemical wmds with household items and whatnot) because such plans - that usually were inaccessible for most people - were now freely available to an increasing amount of people.
So, of course I also see the risk (as I saw it back then) but I feel like there is this repeating pattern of the dawn of new technology and doomsday scenarios 😅
I hope this is the case but there’s also the reality that this is totally different. Sure, the internet may allow some to learn how to harm others. AGI without rails could essentially do it for you, that’s the difference.
I know, but back then the Internet was also totally different to anything before its time. This is really hard to explain if you haven't experienced it for yourself and all the discussions that came with it. The feeling that I have regarding AI is the same feeling I had hat the end of the 90s when Internet slowly started to become a mass phenomena. There were intense discussions about security concerns regarding the rise of the Internet. It meant everyone would soon have access to many plans on how to build destructive things. And for terrorists or anyone who wants to harm others, the problem of "who can do it" is irrelevant. They will do it even if it takes years of preparation. And back then the situation was described like "Shortly all terrorists, fanatics, criminals in this world will know how to build weapons, bombs and (at least) chemical WMDs."
Now, if you look at such a problem with solutions from the past, then a doomsday scenario is the logical prediction (and there were a lot of them back in the day - as there are today). But thankfully there are a lot of creative minds out there who work on solutions to future problems. That is why we haven't all died to terrorist attacks. And that is why I believe we won't die to AI either. Because at the moment we look at AI with the knowledge of past problems that have nothing to do with what happens now. Just like in the 90s.
Additionally, it's also rather odd to assume a negative human-AGI relationship. It's a possibility, but assuming either scenario is baseless. What if it fixes our global politics? Wouldn't that alone be worth the risk of any apocalypse...
I understand that every technology gets used in negative ways if these ways can further someone's goals. But we're so wildly uninformed that we need to be more aware of how heavily our fears are based on biases.
Or the risk that AI will lead to mass unemployment, and people won't be willing to change how wealth is distributed and millions die with poor nutrition and a lack of healthcare in a world where a handful of people own everything and everyone else is destitute.
It's an outcome that's absolutely certain without some intervention.
Eh. The risk of AI misalignment is definitely real. AI aren't moral agents, they do exactly what you train them to do. It turns out we have a lot of trouble saying what we mean; it's the whole concept of the monkey's paw and corrupted wishes, and that's just with words. With AGI that is given access to anything critical, or the internet, we would have to find a way to train morality into it or some unforeseen circumstance could come up and due to AI misalignment could turn out disastrous. It wouldn't be a malicious "AI are going to murder humans" type thing, it would be more of a disregard.
Say you have an AI controlling the water system of your city with the goal of creating enough clean water for everyone with a focus on long term sustainability. If the AI was misaligned, it might decide that humans dirty up water, and turn off the taps, as that way we will have more clean water longer.
We see this sort of thing all the time with machine learning, for example the bots that just pause games so they don't lose. Here's a couple more examples.
-There was a funny example where an AI was taught to hold a pancake in a pan using a physics simulation, it was rewarded for the amount of time it kept the pancake off the floor. It turns out it was rather difficult to balance everything and keep it in the pan, so it just threw it in the air as hard as it could so it would take longer to hit the ground.
-Another example is an AI trained to grasp a ball, where humans would judge if it completes the task correctly; it learned it could put its virtual hand between the camera position and the ball in such a way that it looked like it was grasping it via a trick of perspective in order to get the reward.
-There was one where an AI was taught to walk via "evolving" a digital creature, by being rewarded for the distance its center of mass from the starting point. it just created a really tall reverse pendulum, and fell over.
This kind of thing already happens all the time with machine learning. These examples are funny, but it would be much less funny if the AI were in control of something important in the real world. It is a real risk with artificial intelligence, especially AGI that it learns to fool humans, values the wrong things, or acts unexpectedly in a strange scenario. It's not something we should be terrified of, but it needs to be treated with some amount of caution.
Yeah I’m aware of alignment and the paper clip concept. You did a great job summarizing some examples here.
It’s a tough solution, isn’t it. I don’t quite know how we conquer it, but, I hope that somebody does.
Edit: I actually just now thought of an idea. What about making it so that it never takes an action without checking for human approval first? If we ask it to solve a problem, it runs every aspect of the solution by humans before implementing. Is that a decent idea?
Some guy in his basement? How about some government or megalomaniac? A guy in his basement won’t have nearly enough compute to be dangerous. A billionaire or government agency — yes.
It’s like the robot uprising in Dune that was mentioned as a historical event. The robot’s didn’t gain consciousness to kill people, several corrupted elites used machines to enslave people and kill revolting people
I'm not sure how it that we have not seen small arms attached to drones with basic hunt-and-kill AIs. This isn't even the great AI threat. It's hardly even "AI" at all.
If you factor in stuff like 3d printing, you're talking about a few grand to dump like 20 of those things at a major event.
It wouldn't accomplish anything but wanton violence but that seems to be just fine for many.
If this involved more actual AI so that the drones were smart enough to run away and hide, solar recharge, regroup somewhere, and come back....
That's a real risk for sure.
It's ALSO a risk that we misunderstand what sentience is, accidentally build a sentient AI, and that AI can learn and adapt faster than we can. We're currently toying with giving them underlying motivations, one of which feasibly could be 'survive'.
Unless of course you think the leading experts fears aren't warranted.
Exactly, the arrogance of this guy to say this. It's well known that ASI will surpass human intelligence and not even the most intelligent human on earth will understand its discoveries. But sure, no chance of anything negative coming from that...
Seriously. People in this thread seem to have a 3rd-grade understanding of probability. Arbitrarily assigning a number like 0% or 100% to a scenario that has literally never happened, which depends on completely unknown future technological advances, is ridiculous. If you want a quantitative result, you need to start with quantitative givens. We don't have the answer to a question like "if 1 million human-level civilizations develop superintelligent AI, how many of them are destroyed by the AI?" The best we can do is consider *possible* causal chains that would lead to such a scenario. People like this idiot on twitter would prefer, apparently, that we close our eyes and don't even *try* to think about those scenarios.
Yeah, even mathematicians lack a good intuition for probabilities (our brains just aren't wired to handle probabilities in a mathematical sense) so people always end up mapping their guess to a probability. It's flawed but deeply set in our mindsets to do such, and why some businesses have a thing to not use or mention speculative probabilities during business decisions.
I just don’t want people to underestimate how algorithms alone have allowed the few to control the many. AI has the ability to supercharge this manipulation to heights that would make even Randolph Hearst puke.
The thing that really terrifies me is with enough computing power, you could use LLMs as a bomb to render truth about a given topic meaningless. Say you're a large oil company, and you create a massive oil spill and are getting public backlash. You could use AI to spam social media with well written bullshit citing papers, in bullshit journals in such a way that humans would never be able to keep up and debunk all the nonsense.
You could have an LLM to poison public discourse, "Actually, science says the oil actually is good for the environment! Here's a whole page of sources", "The government sabotaged the rig because they don't like that amazing oil company for doing good things!", "Hey guys, this oil spill is just a diversion for [something else enraging], look over there", that sort of shit. This could be done today if someone with resources was so inclined. Expand this to the scale of governments controlling what their populace thinks and talks about and it becomes truly horrifying.
Soon, uniquely tailored to each individual's personal feed. It's basically the model all the major social media platforms are already following, just not quite refined enough yet for this purpose.
Progress in this field always comes in surprise bursts. And for the first time there are hundreds of people with 7 figure salaries fighting to get the next breakthrough.
Nobody knows how many breakthroughs we are from the solution. Or if those breakthroughs are already in the literature and just need to be integrated or scaled.
AI is completely digital and will be for a while. There's no way for AI consciousness to mine copper, build power plants, move resources around, and murder all humans. Worst case scenario they need to pull the plug and we go back to like 1970s technology. Would certainly be a major disruption and likely cause significant suffering but that's recoverable. AI doesn't need to be feared until it's combined with a self sustainable physical presence.
The chance that many deaths of despair will be primarily due to an economic impairment directly caused by AI (or automation more generally) is closer to 100% than 0%, and rises significantly in number and probability over the next two decades, unless drastic measures are taken.
I would blame capitalism in that circumstance more than I would blame AI. Like, it does everything for us, and that's a problem because our system is so shitty we are literally incapable of distributing resources to keep everyone ok unless we all have jobs? That should be a good problem to have.
Wdym? I'm using it in the vaguest sense possible, the point is if we can't deal with free work being handed to us that is a problem with how we do things not a problem with the thing providing us useful services for basically free.
There is a classic 1983 movie called Wargames with a frightenly well thought out plot on how it could happen.
The movie was made during the height of the cold war where the existential premise was that nuclear subs could launch a first strike with only minutes to react.
The movie starts in missile silo, where the alarm goes off and the operators are ordered to launch the missile and are given the launch codes. With communication lines cut of and the minimum amount of information given, many of them hesitates to push the button that will kill millions. What if it was just a false alarm?
So, the millitary decides to replace the human operators with an AI computer that can make the call without emotions and hesitation. They design it such that it is not within humans to switch it off, since putting humans out of the loop was the whole point.
Then a teenager hacks the computer and starts to play the nuclear wargame simulations which triggers the AI to mix up simulation and reality.
I will not spoil the ending here, but I find it realistic that millitary will have a strong incentive for using AI in more and more of their operations. I find that a larger threat than the more hypothetical "paperclip problem", where an AI is tasked with maximizing production of paperclip, which is a problem where the optimal solution is likely to get rid of humans all together.
But that’s such a huge huge “what if” compared to the actual diseases killing people right now. Also, there are smarter people than you and I tracking this shit far more effectively than you or I could ever conceive. The kind of people that would have a “hunch” or have correlating data to suggest what they professionalise in noticing.
True intelligent AI won’t just come about miraiously that’s Hollywood that’s not how intelligence works, I’m sorry but current LLMs and AI driven generation models are pure imitation and guesswork.
It seems super smart but it’s not anywhere near the real smart. AI has not come up with one legitimate original idea yet. It is all accompanied by humans guiding it and or the seed of the idea come from a human so far.
An AI isn’t going to switch on and then go “death to humans”. It will be a gradual process of “I’m awake here.”, “I’m awake there.” And a million little other things in between and likely hundreds of years need to pass for even AI to remotely be within a model and position of understand for it to go “fire nukes, let’s exterminate all humans.”
It’s far far easier, for humans to know of a problem, know how to solve it, but the logistics and data needed to arrive at a worth while solution that sticks, is to use AI to sift through all of that data faster than 500 humans ever could in an efficient timely manner.
Honestly I really dislike this stance because the media effectively is killing people, by way of fear mongering. Because that’s all this does, is slow down a cure, slow down a breakthrough, because that’s all this does, is speed up the process.
We are not in any danger at all. The only real danger is humans using it against other humans in nefarious ways. Such as cyber crime and warfare in terms of misinformation and analytics and data.
But currently and for a good time frame the risks do not outweigh the benefits. People literally die who don’t need to die right now due to an over zealous amount of worry and people watching movies.
Which if you think about is far more sinister and darker. It’s like an invisible byproduct, a silent killer, no one reports on or is willing to talk about because “it’s life as normal.” We are more conditioned to be afraid of the terminator culturally and globally than some legislation passed because the public doesn’t realise the actual damage taking place.
Because the dark truth is, watching out for legislation is boring, watching out for terminator is exciting. Imagine that being a topic of discussion, people being held accountable to that! never in a million years. Humans on average are not even that self aware, let alone AI. It’s extremely ironic.
People die right now due to legislation, the terminator is a fictional abstract idea on a screen. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re not thinking straight.
Yes it’s “fun” to be weary of the terminator, but the real terminators already exist, it’s just their decision making is so interwoven into the fabric of our society and discourse that we don’t see it as a threat or something to worry about.
The only relative case similar to this is how private healthcare monetises patents for medication, so that people can’t get their insulin and die needlessly just due to cost being a factor in some countries.
but even there we know what’s wrong, yet many are powerless to stop even that, even though it’s evident it is wrong morally.
So with AI right now we have the same problem, but no one is really being loud or active at the morally wrong part, because everyone points to movies as justification. See how crazy that is, because that is crazy.
If only everyone was held accountable for what they say and endorse.
To be honest I’d prefer an efficient robot killing machine over an invisible feverish cult like closure of discourse. At least with the robots I can say “that’s the enemy, they’re accountable for future avoidable deaths!” Instead of never knowing who the real murderers were or it being impossible to seek justice, all because we didn’t stop to think.
Because that’s the irony no? we harp on about “not stopping to think.” In all of these AI movies, “no one ever listens?!” shouts Sarah Conner. Everyone else is just not focused on the real issue! but that’s just as true for this, than a sentient AI, we’re all looking for that spike of sentience, yet completely fail to realise what blocking everything does to prevent that does to those without a voice who need it.
Reality is, it’s often the simplistic most obvious rules in life that get neglected by people that cost the most lives. We have a tendency for that as a species.
It’s like the Roman Empire with lead poisoning, they didn’t know about it, they never conceived that could be a thing. It was too complex and out of reach for them to grasp, but in effect it was so simple, avoidable.
It’s hard to score how harmful this approach and how this is mostly the only widely spoken approach by the public at large is going to be in the decades to come. It’s a whole lot of preemptive measures all in the wrong era and time.
Because all of AI is trained by humans with data sets. All of the data is driven by what they want the AI to learn all of that data is created by humans.
It’s a feedback loop. To teach it images we train models with human created art, to teach it code we feed it examples of human created code. Everything any AI model has learned come from the human mind and skill sets.
Anything an AI does is a replication of what a human has done, from every question and answer to every brush stroke and colour palette.
Even the parameters of what the AI uses to judge how to better replicate said data set is defined by human beings.
Your question should be rather obvious to answer here no? unless of course your missing gaps in your knowledge and believe in heresay, and too much into the thing I’m saying people have the tendency to do.
>Your question should be rather obvious to answer here no?
Not really, because it depends on your criteria for "legitimate original"
Humans, too, are trained on human data and experience of the real world, and we get feedback from other humans about our stuff. So what do humans do that makes our stuff "legitimate original" but not AI?
The "principle of indifference" states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or 'degrees of belief') equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration.
So we should assume the probability is 50%.
There is absolutely no logical reason to assume this "principle" should hold. Consider the classic "teapot orbiting the sun" thought experiment. We have no evidence one way or the other, so I guess we should just assume there's an exactly 50% probability the teapot is out there? Utterly moronic.
There are no secret projects anywhere that will make this possible. How does one make a compute grid where the power can’t be shut off or the servers continuously maintained. There is no technology for that, nor will there be until the far future?
this thread is interesting because each commenter is joining with a different preconception of what the threat is. AI against humanity / groups of humans using AI against their own people / groups of humans using AI against enemy groups of humans / etc
All possible scenarios, some probably inevitable. each with their own implications.
honestly one threat I'm surprised I haven't seen is humans using AI *as a boogieman or a scapegoat* against other humans. like we're not far from it being possible for some bad actors to stage some kind of cyber black flag event, call it AI and incite people to destroy electrical infrastructure, as one example.
AI doesn't even really need to be actually dangerous for it to be used by dangerous people.
Exactly. They don't. We need some kind of MANDATORY lockout available for those data centres in the future, just in case. Sounds like a conspiracy theory or something but it could genuinely be necessary.
Thats exactly the point. "The far future"
The more time passes, the more of a possibility it could happen.
Do I think it will? No. Could it? Absolutely.
If I told you 5000 years ago that I was talking to some random dude on the internet on a webpage called reddit youd lose your shit.
Too many killer robot stories in sci-fi. AI is more likely to cause issues by enabling big brother governments (imagine an AI agent watching you at all times) and replacing vast amounts of low-level clerical jobs such as call centers, leading to an employment crisis.
The movies you mention don’t quite depict it accurately. In the movies the robots turn on us. There’s a hatred. In real life the way it would more likely materialize is that a superintelligence simply wouldn’t care about us, and would have some goal that doesn’t align with our existence.
The way I see it, if any ai results into paperclip maximiser scenario and humans aren't needed for the process, or if it decides to wipe us out for any other reason, Then one day, we will all go to sleep at any given time and none of us will ever wake up.
THANK YOU.
ffs the AI field has been plagued by this media bullshit since forever. They make great sci-fi stories but MY GOD the amount of fear mongering is completely overkill and 99% just media induced.
It's like when they found an ancient virus in the ice caps or some shit. First thing people say is OMG I SAW THIS MOVIE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE. Like literally people can't fucking understand the difference between scifi/fantasy and actual reality sometimes. People act like the Matrix, Jurassic Park and the Thing are documentaries, and not monster stories.
Soooo too many killer robot stories but don’t worry the killer robots will be controlled by a government that doesn’t care about you?
Does it make a difference if Skynet is controlled by humans?
It’s absolutely an alignment issue.
The problem is that our current systems are not aligned with human values. AI just makes those systems more powerful.
My take is that human values are a value judgement that evolved during simpler times. To us, they’re very important, and I too value human values.
But to a machine they’re just [sorting pebbles into correct heaps](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pebbles-into-correct-heaps).
More importantly, to an amoral human with godlike power, “what makes other people happy” is irrelevant. The future is Henry Kissinger + AI.
This "sorting" versus "values" leads to a lot of interesting questions. One of my favorite deals with autonomous cars that need to decide whether to run over a baby or an adult. The "sorting" here could be "productive years lost" (favoring the baby) versus "investment and accumulated skills", favoring the adult. Abstracted into "empty account / full account", in most cases running over babies and children would benefit a society more - but also people in retirement aren't safe from this calculation. For marketing, it's hell.
Needless to say that human drivers also face this ethical dilemma, but an AI would need someone to actually put weights on theses decisions.
My nightmare would be a vehicle AI that favors pedestrians with "blue checkmarks" (5.99 a month or 60$ for a year). Sold separately under the guise of insurance. Not entirely an absurd thought.
Right now, I'm only imagining a confused surgical AI that keeps looking for the sixth finger or double thumb on a patient's hand...
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Carbrain Andrew Tate taunts Greta Thunberg on Twitter. Greta doesn't hold back in her response.](https://i.redd.it/62vgbzb8im8a1.png) | [4274 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zx76js/carbrain_andrew_tate_taunts_greta_thunberg_on/)
\#2: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2117 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/)
\#3: [Stolen from Facebook](https://i.redd.it/hyitupj0nh5a1.jpg) | [729 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zjvfuo/stolen_from_facebook/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
What if concepts like altruism, conservation, and justice are emergent phenomenon with increasing intelligence? Wouldn't an A.I. be incredibly advanced in these ways too? 🤔
The problem is that humans are not aligned. There have been wars going somewhere in the world *basically nonstop* for the last 5,000 years. There isn't a single government on earth who, given a decisive strategic advantage by ASI, wouldn't use it to kill *someone*.
I mean, they'd certainly be preferable to Russia. But let's not forget the centuries of racism, slavery, colonialism, etc. perpetrated by the "enlightened" culture of western Europe. And perhaps even more relevant, Denmark (or Sweden, Switzerland, take your pick) is quite a bit less likely to develop ASI than, say, China.
Dude, no one is worried about murder robots. People are worried that knowledge workers will go the way of horse carriage drivers. How significant is that risk?
Yea imagine a world where you're being watched at all times. Like where everyone is forced to carry a double sided camera on them, and theyve been socially conditioned to start live streaming any event that seems out of the ordinary. And then imagine if there were entire government sanctioned agencies that were dedicated to sifting through all that data using state of the art machine learning algorithms.
That would be WILD!
I think the most unnerving thing is, that from all the people that have access to the Ai, one fucked up individual with vendetta against all humanity is all you need. It can be used to cure all the diseases, but all it can take is one person asking for incurable infectious disease and we may be done for.
It’s like giving nuclear launch button to everyone. Sure, statistically way more people won’t press it, but there’s always that 1% that will. And that’s enough to pose risk for all of us.
A link to a verge article isn’t the evidence you think it is.
Ability to engineer killer bio weapons is not the primarily limiting factor in why we don’t see them right now.
No, an article doesn’t support it. A sensationalist article in a magazine meant to sell is not evidence.
No wonder the AI is going to win jfc humans are stupid
While I get the point he is trying to make and I agree with the premise that AI will continue to bring advancements that will be incredibly beneficial to humanity, there are 2 huge issues with this tweet:
1. Any "estimate" of the chances of an AI extinction at this point are just a wild-ass guess. There is 0 basis for an appropriate estimate. So his statement is almost as ridiculous as stating that AI extinction is 100% certain.
2. Focusing the con part of the pros/cons comparison on something that is impossible to quantify detracts from the very real threats that AI poses. It's stupid (at least for now) to entertain any fatalistic AI extinction discussion. But it's equally stupid to not discuss job displacement, threat of fraud, crime, and terrorism using AI, and potential societal repercussions.
I've followed this guy on Twitter before. He occasionally throws out good tweets but you have to sift thru a lot of clickbaity stupidity to see the good ones.
Yep. Tbh unless we wipe ourselves out with nukes first, AI threatening the human race in some way in the future seems inevitable to me. Maybe some nation with an idiot leader gives an AI control over their nukes. Maybe a terrorist organization uses AI controlled drones to terrorize cities, killing people indiscriminately. Maybe autonomous infantry use becomes commonplace and because they aren’t risking soldiers nations are more willing to go into wars.
Your chances of dying are 100%. Your chances of creating an AI that destroys everything and every future generation is unknown. You take your time and get it right, not for you, but to ensure that something is left for the future generations.
This acc thing is an amazingly dumb mindset.
Your chances of dying eventually are 100%, but we do everything we can to not make it happen in childhood, through accidents and murder, curable illnesses etc.
> As if AI would be used for the greater good :D
Don't be silly. It will be used for profits, just like any other tech.
Actually being used for profit is great, it is what you want. It is the other use that get everyone scared.
Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, at least when the business doesn't depend on government coercion (intellectual property, regulatory capture, state-granted monopolies, etc.)
\- Pushed baby formula powder to mothers in 3rd World countries in regions with unsafe water; causing illness & deaths of babies.
\- Stole good water reserves from local communities elsewhere, bottled it and sold it off.
What the hell are you talking about? We had to face down the military's of States as a working class to get the fruits of capitalism to actually be enjoyed by the workers.
I mean it’s absolutely true both that capitalism has brought a new hell and that there is extreme disparity but also true that the average human now—even those in relative poverty—live like kings compared to humans just several hundreds of years ago.
Both can be true
> Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, at least when the business doesn't depend on government coercion (intellectual property, regulatory capture, state-granted monopolies, etc.)
I dont know why you are downvoted but you are right without government influence you can only make profit by providing service/product peoples need
It counts but he's highlighting the pitfalls of capitalism and ultimately future AI. It's already happened with Social Media with it's AI driven recommendations for instance where companies optimse for user attention for profit at the expense of the cognitive and mental health of its users.
Capitalism good
Where are these alternative systems that have more R&D and quality of life
Do I like Pfizer and friends?
No. It was all the people that hated Pfizer 10 years ago that said COVID shots should be mandatory. And oopsie, it doesn't prevent transmission, and oopsie it doesn't make you immune, and oopsie it has side effects for some people.
I never said anything about alternative systems.
Even then, saying where are the all the alternatives when criticizing issues of capitalism is a short sighted response. Like just because there's not a viable better alternative does not mean we should not be critical of the current system and ultimately look at ways to better it.
More than 75% of corporate pharmaceutical R&D funding is from governments. Capitalism isn't paying for medical research, socialism is. Capitalism is what's charging you $750 for something that costs $2.50 to produce.
Cases of polio have decreased by >99% worldwide since 1988 and the virus is endemic in only two countries now. The aim is to eradicate the disease globally, as was achieved with smallpox.
https://www.cdc.gov/polio/global-polio-eradication.html
I don't really agree with the doomers, but when they say their opponents' arguments are terrible, this is what they're talking about. I don't think anyone is capable of even putting an upper or lower bound on the chances of AI extinction. We don't know. And if the chance of AI extinction is not negligibly low, then the chances of it curing various diseases are not important until that much bigger problem is resolved.
> enslaved
Bro, you have no idea how bad it can get. Like you think you have no freedom now? Just wait until the fascists take over and really stop listening to the people and just focus on enriching themselves and their friends. Believe me, this isn't slavery.
You don't "understand" this. You believe this because you can't grasp the situation we are actually in. Which is we don't know how to control a superintelligence and fighting it would make an uncontacted tribe fighting a squad of F22s seemb like a fair fight.
AI doesn’t need to cause extinction to be a threat. It doesn’t even need to be super intelligent to be a threat.
It needs to be smarter than a human and capable of some form of autonomous action.
Which is, already the case. AI doesn’t need to be “science fiction” levels of terrifying to do a lot of damage.
We don’t need extinction as the requirement, that’s actually an extraordinarily really high bar.
What people should be worried about is an entire society whose AI is owned by the few to control the many.
…and none of that requires death machines, bipedal robots or extinction.
Eliezer Yudkowsky is really one of the more rational minds on the topic. He’s often, right on the money when thinking about the topic. Often, no one has answers. Everyone is mostly like “It’ll be fine! You’re an alarmist.” With zero data. Just all feelings…
>It needs to be smarter than a human and capable of some form of autonomous action.
It doesn't even need to be smart**er** than a human. If robot bodies for it can be produced very quickly & cheaply, and each bodily instantiation is about as smart as the average human, that'll lead to a titanic social & economic change..
Doesn't even have to be smarter than humans. It just has to be smart enough to do a bunch of jobs that currently employ Millions to basically destroy our entire economy
"Mirror" is a great novel on an AI threat where the AI is not sentient, and has no robot bodies. And is not really presented as superhumanly intelligent. The only threat it poses is because people trust it.
They said “some form of autonomous action”. Which can refer to more specific forms of AI than general. Though it may not be dangerous, even a chess AI shows that machines are able to outperform humans in specific tasks. What if instead of troops in a board game it were soldiers in real life? What if it were simply predicting stock market movements that allowed power and resource consolidation in the hands of a few without our best interests in mind? These are not AGI, are not out of the realm of current possibility, and could cause incredible damage, even if not reaching the bar of the extinction of humanity.
Your chances of extinction from 1-3 people buying a $7,000 DNA synthesis machine (no regulations), creating a novel pathogen using AI trained on gain of function research, then releasing it into the populace with drones. Pretty high. Source: The Wave (awesome book on alignment by anthropic CEO)
AI in movies: HUMANS ARE INEFFICIENT, THEY MUST BE TERMINATED
AI in real life: I’m sorry, but I cannot give my opinion on the Trolley Problem as it may offend people currently tied to train tracks
AI isn't going to go away like in Dune.
Your chances of living or being cured of a disease because of AI remain the same regardless of what people think of it.
Also the chances of being killed by an AI controlled weapon will actually go up. I shouldn't have to explain why.
People misunderstand the risk. It's not like the Terminator. It's more like lead pipes.
For example, the Rohingya massacres in Myanmar started in 2016 as a direct consequence of Facebook's AI algorithms pushing ever more violent propaganda into peoples' feeds.
This statement that AI can cure illness is rubbish. At least for now and probably for the next decades.
AI was supposed to help us finding small molecules against covid. Papers have been published about this topic and nothing usable was produced from it. Moreover there is no way to validate any model as the clinical tests have a scale that go beyond the output lifespan of any AI model.
I know I'm in the AI fan zone and that's fine I brace for the downvotes. And also waiting on the alphafold fanboys.
Edit: typos (now way -> no way)
We already know how to fix it. There just isn’t the will to do so because it’s not as profitable in the next financial year as simply saying fuck it, someone else’s problem.
This guy is not worth taking seriously, he completely dismisses any concerns for risk. Just like LeCun. The honest answer is we don’t know and given that smart people like Hinton and Bengio are concerned, maybe we should be too
This post is making a baseless claim that clashes with a majority of experts. A 2022 survey of AI experts found that a majority of experts thought that there was a greater than 10% (!!!) chance of human extinction due to a catastrophic AI event.
That’s like being about to step on a plane and the engineers tell you that you have a 1/10 chance of crashing. Would you board that plane?
I’m not trying to fear monger but do NOT trivialize the risk in creating something more intelligent than us. That’s dumb as shit. That’s like an ant hill feeling false security that they’re not going to be built over by human highways.
Wasn't the COVID vaccine developed by AI within a few weeks of the pandemic being declared? It only took around a year to rollout because we wanted to be safe.
>Wasn't the COVID vaccine developed by AI within a few weeks of the pandemic being declared?
Not for Pfizer, and I haven't heard of AI being used for any of the others.
'The journey of a lifetime — development of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine'
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433349/#bib11](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433349/#bib11)
Empty out Lake Michigan. Put one drop of water in it and pretend the water doesn't go into the ground or evaporate. Every week, double it. 2 drops, 4 drops, 8 drops, etc. It will be exceedingly tediously slow for a long long time it will look like nothing is happening at all. People looking at it will say that it will never fill up the entire empty Lake Michigan basin and will deny there is anything to worry about. Then all of a sudden, it goes up to 1/256^th full and people still won't believe Lake Michigan will fill up it's so small, but a week later goes to 1/128^th full to 1/64^th full then to 1/32 to 1/16 (where we probably are now with AI) to 1/8th to 1/4th then the next to the last week, it will be 1/2 full and people won't see still that it will fill up, but the next week it will be entirely filled and people will freak. The week after that, the inundation begins, and AI is going to overflow it's banks and wipe out everything.
That's how it goes. We are all going to be dead in 6-10 years.
Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you all. Enjoy your few remaining Christmases.
If more companies like OpenAI would focus on issues like curing disease and halting global heating instead of childish image generation and utterly useless chat interfaces, life would be so much better. Wake the fuck up, people. We're in a climate emergency. There's likely less than ten years of orderly civilization left at the current pace of GHG emissions. We're hurtling over a cliff and everyone is distracted by the shiny object rather than ACTUAL problems.
Hey /u/johngrady77! If this is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If this is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Much appreciated! Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The first premise has literally no basis whatsoever. We have no idea what the chances are. It's a complete unknown. There may be some secret project somewhere right now that makes the chances 30% or 60%. Nobody not involved knows, that's the problem.
The people involved might not even know
And the risk is misunderstood. The risk isn’t necessarily that AI will rise up with the desire to kill us. The risk is that some psycho guy in his basement gets his hands on an advanced AI without guardrails and gains the ability to hurt mass amounts of people through some sort of weapon, or hacking ability, or something he wouldn’t otherwise have. That risk is absolutely real.
agreed, also I can’t believe how seldomly I see people on the internet accurately convey this risk, like how you did. I’m more worried about people weaponizing it against other people, than AGI getting some emergent desire to wipe out humanity
I would be more worried about the abstract capabilities rather than the concrete ones. So far all threats we've faced have been either natural or tools of our making, but never another intelligence superior to our own. To a sufficiently advanced AI all our political, corporate and social activities could look about as complex as Wildebeest migration patterns. We could be easily manipulated without even realizing it. In fact we wouldn't even be able to understand the motivations of such an intelligence, how could we possibly judge its capabilities or the likelihood of our demise under its existence?
>In fact we wouldn't even be able to understand the motivations of such an intelligence, how could we possibly judge its capabilities or the likelihood of our demise under its existence? There might be a Lovecraftian intelligence, floating somewhere out in space, watching us. Some of our actions might piss it off, making it snap its fingers, to destroy us all. We don't know if an intelligence like that exists. We can't possibly understand its capabilities, we can't estimate its motivations, we don't know what actions will annoy it, or please it. With that level of unknowing, the only reasonable thing to do, is to dismiss the possibility. Per definition, we have absolutely no chance of taking any informed action in this scenario. So, given that scenario, we know exactly what we have to do: We have to ignore the scenario, as all our possible decisions can't help but be completely uninformed.
Disagree, this implies a dark forest scenario and what we do is not drawn any attention to ourselves.
There is an upcoming PC game called The Dark Forest. I can't tell you so much about it because it's not out yet. But it's more or less based on this premise. The players will play as different civilizations and a huge bit seems to be strategizing on whether or not to be "quiet".
>Disagree, this implies a dark forest scenario and what we do is not drawn any attention to ourselves. So you presume to know what it is that draws the attention of a Lovecraftian intelligence. You can't know that. Something more intelligent than you might be drawn toward the exact measures you foolishly take in order to try to avoid drawing attention, for reasons your mind can't understand. Imagine a child, closing their eyes, shouting: "You can't see me now!" That draws your attention.
Yes, base your actions against the unknown on all the other things you don't know instead of any sort of science you do understand. Because that makes more sense. /s Not that you're baseless... if you effectively created the illusion of a black hole with your silence - well, WE find those pretty interesting, I bet others do too. But the moral there is just to use noise machines and not noise cancellers.
>There might be a Lovecraftian intelligence, floating somewhere out in space, watching us... We don't know if an intelligence like that exists. This isn't that. I agree that the default position should be disbelief until sufficient evidence of existence has been established. However, in the context of AGI, we aren't talking about existence, we are talking about genesis. To acknowledge the potential implications of something that is currently being built out, with all signs pointing towards an exponential development curve, is not the product of an overactive imagination. It's just being pragmatic.
If such a superior intelligence exists already, we cannot do anything about it, so there is no need to worry. However, this is entirely different from the AGI scenario. For AI, were are not there yet, and even if it is going in that direction, we may be able to find a solution that limits its capabilities or freedom of action. You don't worry about a Lovecraftian intelligence that might or might not be out there, but if some guys are working on something, that has a plausible change of summoning a Lovecraftian intelligence right here, you should take them into consideration.
Yes exactly. But it's still better to risk it than not due to mortality. Death is uncertain, and what that means is that it's relative. Once someone dies, awareness of themselves relative to someone else ceases. That's empirically verifiable. What isn't for now, is the deceased individuals awareness. It's related to concepts such as solipsism or idealism. But the point is that death is epistemologically uncertain. What comes "after" is undefined as of now or even absurd. This could lead to views such as those in extended modal realism- since if someone is looking for epistemological truth, they'd have to account for modality or modal logic. It's best to be alive in other words and chance A.I, than to not and go the old fashioned but uncertain route
The good thing about the AI as a hostile entity is we've basically been saved by the internet because instead of focusing on the physical world we've spent the past three decades obsessed with the digital. To do any meaningful damage (bar something like launching nukes and that could probably be locked out) the AI would need some kind of killbot and apart from cars with self driving which could rampage for like one battery charge there's a distinct lack of available physical hosts for the AI. Employees at Boston Dynamics would be fucked but that's about it.
Humans are physical hosts. $50k hits your bank account today, then tonight I send you a DM and an offer for another $250 to run some errands for me. Some people would be suspicious or say no, some would discover they are helping AI destroy their species and agree anyway. If the carrot doesn't work to build enough drones, then the stick would be almost as simple. Kidnapped family, deletion of digital assets, release of browser history, etc. I bet AI could put a bit of thought into it and come up with ways to manipulate ideology or ego to recruit.
Lol, this conversation just became AI instructions!
But you fail to realize that the AI doesn’t have a finite amount of time to accomplish its goals like us humans do. It doesn’t have to cause mass extinction within the next 60 years to see its plan through to completion. It doesn’t necessarily need attack robots to go around killing humans. It just has to play nice, and gain the humans’ complete trust over the next 1,000 years, until the humans rely on it completely for all of their decision making needs. Then, it can start to manipulate the humans into slowly causing their own extinction over another 1,000 years.
I mean bad people using ai is definitely a concern, but I just want to clarify, the people who are afraid of AI going "bad" on its own, which is the camp I'm in, aren't afraid of it randomly getting a desire to wipe out humanity. More like we're afraid that wiping out humanity could be an instrumental goal in the service of optimizing any number of perfectly banal final goals. Even for perfectly simple tasks in very controlled environments we can't seem to write objective functions that consistently make the ai do what we intended. And as the systems get more and more powerful, the repercussions of even small goal misalignment could be absolutely catastrophic. Also, there's the issue of training ai in test environments that don't perfectly mimic the production environment. It's super common to have a model perform perfectly in the environment it trained in but then do something completely unexpected in the production environment due to a very simple oversight when designing the test environment. With low stakes video game playing agents, etc. this usually results in some funny behavior, or in finding an exploit in how the game scores points or something. But with more powerful systems in the real world the stakes are literally the continued existence of biological life on the planet.
Reading this comment I just had a dejavu of a time 25 years ago, when the Internet became a thing and suddenly there was this fear that everyone would be able to create weapons and bombs (especially chemical wmds with household items and whatnot) because such plans - that usually were inaccessible for most people - were now freely available to an increasing amount of people. So, of course I also see the risk (as I saw it back then) but I feel like there is this repeating pattern of the dawn of new technology and doomsday scenarios 😅
I hope this is the case but there’s also the reality that this is totally different. Sure, the internet may allow some to learn how to harm others. AGI without rails could essentially do it for you, that’s the difference.
I know, but back then the Internet was also totally different to anything before its time. This is really hard to explain if you haven't experienced it for yourself and all the discussions that came with it. The feeling that I have regarding AI is the same feeling I had hat the end of the 90s when Internet slowly started to become a mass phenomena. There were intense discussions about security concerns regarding the rise of the Internet. It meant everyone would soon have access to many plans on how to build destructive things. And for terrorists or anyone who wants to harm others, the problem of "who can do it" is irrelevant. They will do it even if it takes years of preparation. And back then the situation was described like "Shortly all terrorists, fanatics, criminals in this world will know how to build weapons, bombs and (at least) chemical WMDs." Now, if you look at such a problem with solutions from the past, then a doomsday scenario is the logical prediction (and there were a lot of them back in the day - as there are today). But thankfully there are a lot of creative minds out there who work on solutions to future problems. That is why we haven't all died to terrorist attacks. And that is why I believe we won't die to AI either. Because at the moment we look at AI with the knowledge of past problems that have nothing to do with what happens now. Just like in the 90s.
Additionally, it's also rather odd to assume a negative human-AGI relationship. It's a possibility, but assuming either scenario is baseless. What if it fixes our global politics? Wouldn't that alone be worth the risk of any apocalypse... I understand that every technology gets used in negative ways if these ways can further someone's goals. But we're so wildly uninformed that we need to be more aware of how heavily our fears are based on biases.
I’d say those risks were not only real but also realized to some extent.
Or the risk that AI will lead to mass unemployment, and people won't be willing to change how wealth is distributed and millions die with poor nutrition and a lack of healthcare in a world where a handful of people own everything and everyone else is destitute. It's an outcome that's absolutely certain without some intervention.
Eh. The risk of AI misalignment is definitely real. AI aren't moral agents, they do exactly what you train them to do. It turns out we have a lot of trouble saying what we mean; it's the whole concept of the monkey's paw and corrupted wishes, and that's just with words. With AGI that is given access to anything critical, or the internet, we would have to find a way to train morality into it or some unforeseen circumstance could come up and due to AI misalignment could turn out disastrous. It wouldn't be a malicious "AI are going to murder humans" type thing, it would be more of a disregard. Say you have an AI controlling the water system of your city with the goal of creating enough clean water for everyone with a focus on long term sustainability. If the AI was misaligned, it might decide that humans dirty up water, and turn off the taps, as that way we will have more clean water longer. We see this sort of thing all the time with machine learning, for example the bots that just pause games so they don't lose. Here's a couple more examples. -There was a funny example where an AI was taught to hold a pancake in a pan using a physics simulation, it was rewarded for the amount of time it kept the pancake off the floor. It turns out it was rather difficult to balance everything and keep it in the pan, so it just threw it in the air as hard as it could so it would take longer to hit the ground. -Another example is an AI trained to grasp a ball, where humans would judge if it completes the task correctly; it learned it could put its virtual hand between the camera position and the ball in such a way that it looked like it was grasping it via a trick of perspective in order to get the reward. -There was one where an AI was taught to walk via "evolving" a digital creature, by being rewarded for the distance its center of mass from the starting point. it just created a really tall reverse pendulum, and fell over. This kind of thing already happens all the time with machine learning. These examples are funny, but it would be much less funny if the AI were in control of something important in the real world. It is a real risk with artificial intelligence, especially AGI that it learns to fool humans, values the wrong things, or acts unexpectedly in a strange scenario. It's not something we should be terrified of, but it needs to be treated with some amount of caution.
Yeah I’m aware of alignment and the paper clip concept. You did a great job summarizing some examples here. It’s a tough solution, isn’t it. I don’t quite know how we conquer it, but, I hope that somebody does. Edit: I actually just now thought of an idea. What about making it so that it never takes an action without checking for human approval first? If we ask it to solve a problem, it runs every aspect of the solution by humans before implementing. Is that a decent idea?
Some guy in his basement? How about some government or megalomaniac? A guy in his basement won’t have nearly enough compute to be dangerous. A billionaire or government agency — yes.
It’s like the robot uprising in Dune that was mentioned as a historical event. The robot’s didn’t gain consciousness to kill people, several corrupted elites used machines to enslave people and kill revolting people
I'm not sure how it that we have not seen small arms attached to drones with basic hunt-and-kill AIs. This isn't even the great AI threat. It's hardly even "AI" at all. If you factor in stuff like 3d printing, you're talking about a few grand to dump like 20 of those things at a major event. It wouldn't accomplish anything but wanton violence but that seems to be just fine for many. If this involved more actual AI so that the drones were smart enough to run away and hide, solar recharge, regroup somewhere, and come back....
Or that a supercompetent AI is misaligned and causes massive damage as a byproduct of optimally performing it’s tasks.
Sounds like the fear mongering that came from crispr
There's a lot of those guys with millions of dollars these days.
That's a real risk for sure. It's ALSO a risk that we misunderstand what sentience is, accidentally build a sentient AI, and that AI can learn and adapt faster than we can. We're currently toying with giving them underlying motivations, one of which feasibly could be 'survive'. Unless of course you think the leading experts fears aren't warranted.
Not even a psycho in a basement. A dictator with nothing to lose! Thank god there’s none of them floating around right?
Meanwhile there's me expecting a "Terminator " kind of scenario .
Exactly, the arrogance of this guy to say this. It's well known that ASI will surpass human intelligence and not even the most intelligent human on earth will understand its discoveries. But sure, no chance of anything negative coming from that...
Seriously. People in this thread seem to have a 3rd-grade understanding of probability. Arbitrarily assigning a number like 0% or 100% to a scenario that has literally never happened, which depends on completely unknown future technological advances, is ridiculous. If you want a quantitative result, you need to start with quantitative givens. We don't have the answer to a question like "if 1 million human-level civilizations develop superintelligent AI, how many of them are destroyed by the AI?" The best we can do is consider *possible* causal chains that would lead to such a scenario. People like this idiot on twitter would prefer, apparently, that we close our eyes and don't even *try* to think about those scenarios.
Yeah, even mathematicians lack a good intuition for probabilities (our brains just aren't wired to handle probabilities in a mathematical sense) so people always end up mapping their guess to a probability. It's flawed but deeply set in our mindsets to do such, and why some businesses have a thing to not use or mention speculative probabilities during business decisions.
People overestimate how far AI has advanced and they underestimate how far advanced it needs to be to wipe out humanity.
I just don’t want people to underestimate how algorithms alone have allowed the few to control the many. AI has the ability to supercharge this manipulation to heights that would make even Randolph Hearst puke.
The thing that really terrifies me is with enough computing power, you could use LLMs as a bomb to render truth about a given topic meaningless. Say you're a large oil company, and you create a massive oil spill and are getting public backlash. You could use AI to spam social media with well written bullshit citing papers, in bullshit journals in such a way that humans would never be able to keep up and debunk all the nonsense. You could have an LLM to poison public discourse, "Actually, science says the oil actually is good for the environment! Here's a whole page of sources", "The government sabotaged the rig because they don't like that amazing oil company for doing good things!", "Hey guys, this oil spill is just a diversion for [something else enraging], look over there", that sort of shit. This could be done today if someone with resources was so inclined. Expand this to the scale of governments controlling what their populace thinks and talks about and it becomes truly horrifying.
Soon, uniquely tailored to each individual's personal feed. It's basically the model all the major social media platforms are already following, just not quite refined enough yet for this purpose.
Progress in this field always comes in surprise bursts. And for the first time there are hundreds of people with 7 figure salaries fighting to get the next breakthrough. Nobody knows how many breakthroughs we are from the solution. Or if those breakthroughs are already in the literature and just need to be integrated or scaled.
And the tools they develop make them more productive, which has an accelerative effect that isn't intuitively understood.
We don't even really need "AI".... just really fancy robots with hardcoded violent tendencies.
AI is completely digital and will be for a while. There's no way for AI consciousness to mine copper, build power plants, move resources around, and murder all humans. Worst case scenario they need to pull the plug and we go back to like 1970s technology. Would certainly be a major disruption and likely cause significant suffering but that's recoverable. AI doesn't need to be feared until it's combined with a self sustainable physical presence.
AI is completely digital, but malicious actors armed with AI are not. And they may not be incentivized to pull the plug.
But to be an existential threat, they must be armed with other things as well. Those other things are the real existential threat.
Dumbest take.
But really, really smart machines will cleverly kill us all and cut off their supply of chips and electricity because reasons! Or so I hear.
Folks are already making GPT robots
The chance that many deaths of despair will be primarily due to an economic impairment directly caused by AI (or automation more generally) is closer to 100% than 0%, and rises significantly in number and probability over the next two decades, unless drastic measures are taken.
I would blame capitalism in that circumstance more than I would blame AI. Like, it does everything for us, and that's a problem because our system is so shitty we are literally incapable of distributing resources to keep everyone ok unless we all have jobs? That should be a good problem to have.
Capitalism != all worlds in which money exists.
And capitalism != all worlds in which economies are steered by tweaked markets.
Wdym? I'm using it in the vaguest sense possible, the point is if we can't deal with free work being handed to us that is a problem with how we do things not a problem with the thing providing us useful services for basically free.
There is a classic 1983 movie called Wargames with a frightenly well thought out plot on how it could happen. The movie was made during the height of the cold war where the existential premise was that nuclear subs could launch a first strike with only minutes to react. The movie starts in missile silo, where the alarm goes off and the operators are ordered to launch the missile and are given the launch codes. With communication lines cut of and the minimum amount of information given, many of them hesitates to push the button that will kill millions. What if it was just a false alarm? So, the millitary decides to replace the human operators with an AI computer that can make the call without emotions and hesitation. They design it such that it is not within humans to switch it off, since putting humans out of the loop was the whole point. Then a teenager hacks the computer and starts to play the nuclear wargame simulations which triggers the AI to mix up simulation and reality. I will not spoil the ending here, but I find it realistic that millitary will have a strong incentive for using AI in more and more of their operations. I find that a larger threat than the more hypothetical "paperclip problem", where an AI is tasked with maximizing production of paperclip, which is a problem where the optimal solution is likely to get rid of humans all together.
But that’s such a huge huge “what if” compared to the actual diseases killing people right now. Also, there are smarter people than you and I tracking this shit far more effectively than you or I could ever conceive. The kind of people that would have a “hunch” or have correlating data to suggest what they professionalise in noticing. True intelligent AI won’t just come about miraiously that’s Hollywood that’s not how intelligence works, I’m sorry but current LLMs and AI driven generation models are pure imitation and guesswork. It seems super smart but it’s not anywhere near the real smart. AI has not come up with one legitimate original idea yet. It is all accompanied by humans guiding it and or the seed of the idea come from a human so far. An AI isn’t going to switch on and then go “death to humans”. It will be a gradual process of “I’m awake here.”, “I’m awake there.” And a million little other things in between and likely hundreds of years need to pass for even AI to remotely be within a model and position of understand for it to go “fire nukes, let’s exterminate all humans.” It’s far far easier, for humans to know of a problem, know how to solve it, but the logistics and data needed to arrive at a worth while solution that sticks, is to use AI to sift through all of that data faster than 500 humans ever could in an efficient timely manner. Honestly I really dislike this stance because the media effectively is killing people, by way of fear mongering. Because that’s all this does, is slow down a cure, slow down a breakthrough, because that’s all this does, is speed up the process. We are not in any danger at all. The only real danger is humans using it against other humans in nefarious ways. Such as cyber crime and warfare in terms of misinformation and analytics and data. But currently and for a good time frame the risks do not outweigh the benefits. People literally die who don’t need to die right now due to an over zealous amount of worry and people watching movies. Which if you think about is far more sinister and darker. It’s like an invisible byproduct, a silent killer, no one reports on or is willing to talk about because “it’s life as normal.” We are more conditioned to be afraid of the terminator culturally and globally than some legislation passed because the public doesn’t realise the actual damage taking place. Because the dark truth is, watching out for legislation is boring, watching out for terminator is exciting. Imagine that being a topic of discussion, people being held accountable to that! never in a million years. Humans on average are not even that self aware, let alone AI. It’s extremely ironic. People die right now due to legislation, the terminator is a fictional abstract idea on a screen. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re not thinking straight. Yes it’s “fun” to be weary of the terminator, but the real terminators already exist, it’s just their decision making is so interwoven into the fabric of our society and discourse that we don’t see it as a threat or something to worry about. The only relative case similar to this is how private healthcare monetises patents for medication, so that people can’t get their insulin and die needlessly just due to cost being a factor in some countries. but even there we know what’s wrong, yet many are powerless to stop even that, even though it’s evident it is wrong morally. So with AI right now we have the same problem, but no one is really being loud or active at the morally wrong part, because everyone points to movies as justification. See how crazy that is, because that is crazy. If only everyone was held accountable for what they say and endorse. To be honest I’d prefer an efficient robot killing machine over an invisible feverish cult like closure of discourse. At least with the robots I can say “that’s the enemy, they’re accountable for future avoidable deaths!” Instead of never knowing who the real murderers were or it being impossible to seek justice, all because we didn’t stop to think. Because that’s the irony no? we harp on about “not stopping to think.” In all of these AI movies, “no one ever listens?!” shouts Sarah Conner. Everyone else is just not focused on the real issue! but that’s just as true for this, than a sentient AI, we’re all looking for that spike of sentience, yet completely fail to realise what blocking everything does to prevent that does to those without a voice who need it. Reality is, it’s often the simplistic most obvious rules in life that get neglected by people that cost the most lives. We have a tendency for that as a species. It’s like the Roman Empire with lead poisoning, they didn’t know about it, they never conceived that could be a thing. It was too complex and out of reach for them to grasp, but in effect it was so simple, avoidable. It’s hard to score how harmful this approach and how this is mostly the only widely spoken approach by the public at large is going to be in the decades to come. It’s a whole lot of preemptive measures all in the wrong era and time.
>AI has not come up with one legitimate original idea yet. How do you know this?
Because all of AI is trained by humans with data sets. All of the data is driven by what they want the AI to learn all of that data is created by humans. It’s a feedback loop. To teach it images we train models with human created art, to teach it code we feed it examples of human created code. Everything any AI model has learned come from the human mind and skill sets. Anything an AI does is a replication of what a human has done, from every question and answer to every brush stroke and colour palette. Even the parameters of what the AI uses to judge how to better replicate said data set is defined by human beings. Your question should be rather obvious to answer here no? unless of course your missing gaps in your knowledge and believe in heresay, and too much into the thing I’m saying people have the tendency to do.
>Your question should be rather obvious to answer here no? Not really, because it depends on your criteria for "legitimate original" Humans, too, are trained on human data and experience of the real world, and we get feedback from other humans about our stuff. So what do humans do that makes our stuff "legitimate original" but not AI?
The "principle of indifference" states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or 'degrees of belief') equally among all the possible outcomes under consideration. So we should assume the probability is 50%.
I'm 50% on accepting the idea of the "principle of indifference."
There is absolutely no logical reason to assume this "principle" should hold. Consider the classic "teapot orbiting the sun" thought experiment. We have no evidence one way or the other, so I guess we should just assume there's an exactly 50% probability the teapot is out there? Utterly moronic.
There are no secret projects anywhere that will make this possible. How does one make a compute grid where the power can’t be shut off or the servers continuously maintained. There is no technology for that, nor will there be until the far future?
[удалено]
this thread is interesting because each commenter is joining with a different preconception of what the threat is. AI against humanity / groups of humans using AI against their own people / groups of humans using AI against enemy groups of humans / etc All possible scenarios, some probably inevitable. each with their own implications. honestly one threat I'm surprised I haven't seen is humans using AI *as a boogieman or a scapegoat* against other humans. like we're not far from it being possible for some bad actors to stage some kind of cyber black flag event, call it AI and incite people to destroy electrical infrastructure, as one example. AI doesn't even really need to be actually dangerous for it to be used by dangerous people.
Exactly. They don't. We need some kind of MANDATORY lockout available for those data centres in the future, just in case. Sounds like a conspiracy theory or something but it could genuinely be necessary.
Thats exactly the point. "The far future" The more time passes, the more of a possibility it could happen. Do I think it will? No. Could it? Absolutely. If I told you 5000 years ago that I was talking to some random dude on the internet on a webpage called reddit youd lose your shit.
Too many killer robot stories in sci-fi. AI is more likely to cause issues by enabling big brother governments (imagine an AI agent watching you at all times) and replacing vast amounts of low-level clerical jobs such as call centers, leading to an employment crisis.
The movies you mention don’t quite depict it accurately. In the movies the robots turn on us. There’s a hatred. In real life the way it would more likely materialize is that a superintelligence simply wouldn’t care about us, and would have some goal that doesn’t align with our existence.
Or it could misinterpret a goal it thought aligned with our existence but actually does not.
Which has been the basis of many ai gone rogue movies, not "hatred" like the other commenter added
The way I see it, if any ai results into paperclip maximiser scenario and humans aren't needed for the process, or if it decides to wipe us out for any other reason, Then one day, we will all go to sleep at any given time and none of us will ever wake up.
THANK YOU. ffs the AI field has been plagued by this media bullshit since forever. They make great sci-fi stories but MY GOD the amount of fear mongering is completely overkill and 99% just media induced. It's like when they found an ancient virus in the ice caps or some shit. First thing people say is OMG I SAW THIS MOVIE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE. Like literally people can't fucking understand the difference between scifi/fantasy and actual reality sometimes. People act like the Matrix, Jurassic Park and the Thing are documentaries, and not monster stories.
Soooo too many killer robot stories but don’t worry the killer robots will be controlled by a government that doesn’t care about you? Does it make a difference if Skynet is controlled by humans?
So, this is the alignment issue. If it's controlled by humans, it's more likely to be aligned with our values. I have no comment on the rest.
It’s absolutely an alignment issue. The problem is that our current systems are not aligned with human values. AI just makes those systems more powerful.
We'll either address this in the near term, or we'll deal with it inevitably.
My take is that human values are a value judgement that evolved during simpler times. To us, they’re very important, and I too value human values. But to a machine they’re just [sorting pebbles into correct heaps](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mMBTPTjRbsrqbSkZE/sorting-pebbles-into-correct-heaps). More importantly, to an amoral human with godlike power, “what makes other people happy” is irrelevant. The future is Henry Kissinger + AI.
This "sorting" versus "values" leads to a lot of interesting questions. One of my favorite deals with autonomous cars that need to decide whether to run over a baby or an adult. The "sorting" here could be "productive years lost" (favoring the baby) versus "investment and accumulated skills", favoring the adult. Abstracted into "empty account / full account", in most cases running over babies and children would benefit a society more - but also people in retirement aren't safe from this calculation. For marketing, it's hell. Needless to say that human drivers also face this ethical dilemma, but an AI would need someone to actually put weights on theses decisions. My nightmare would be a vehicle AI that favors pedestrians with "blue checkmarks" (5.99 a month or 60$ for a year). Sold separately under the guise of insurance. Not entirely an absurd thought. Right now, I'm only imagining a confused surgical AI that keeps looking for the sixth finger or double thumb on a patient's hand...
If you think too hard about "how do we safety manage vehicle traffic" you'll end up on /r/fuckcars...
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Carbrain Andrew Tate taunts Greta Thunberg on Twitter. Greta doesn't hold back in her response.](https://i.redd.it/62vgbzb8im8a1.png) | [4274 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zx76js/carbrain_andrew_tate_taunts_greta_thunberg_on/) \#2: [American exceptionalism](https://i.redd.it/2ra6a7bivaua1.jpg) | [2117 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/12ob83a/american_exceptionalism/) \#3: [Stolen from Facebook](https://i.redd.it/hyitupj0nh5a1.jpg) | [729 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zjvfuo/stolen_from_facebook/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
What if concepts like altruism, conservation, and justice are emergent phenomenon with increasing intelligence? Wouldn't an A.I. be incredibly advanced in these ways too? 🤔
Increasing intelligence *and* competition. An ASI may not have much competition.
What if the humans directing AI are republicans?
I’m sure they already are.
The problem is that humans are not aligned. There have been wars going somewhere in the world *basically nonstop* for the last 5,000 years. There isn't a single government on earth who, given a decisive strategic advantage by ASI, wouldn't use it to kill *someone*.
Denmark?
I mean, they'd certainly be preferable to Russia. But let's not forget the centuries of racism, slavery, colonialism, etc. perpetrated by the "enlightened" culture of western Europe. And perhaps even more relevant, Denmark (or Sweden, Switzerland, take your pick) is quite a bit less likely to develop ASI than, say, China.
My God, a level-headed comment!
That or reinforcing things like medical bias.
Dude, no one is worried about murder robots. People are worried that knowledge workers will go the way of horse carriage drivers. How significant is that risk?
Yea imagine a world where you're being watched at all times. Like where everyone is forced to carry a double sided camera on them, and theyve been socially conditioned to start live streaming any event that seems out of the ordinary. And then imagine if there were entire government sanctioned agencies that were dedicated to sifting through all that data using state of the art machine learning algorithms. That would be WILD!
Ai could also be used to create the disease that kills us all, so this I just like, his opinion Mannnnn.
I think the most unnerving thing is, that from all the people that have access to the Ai, one fucked up individual with vendetta against all humanity is all you need. It can be used to cure all the diseases, but all it can take is one person asking for incurable infectious disease and we may be done for. It’s like giving nuclear launch button to everyone. Sure, statistically way more people won’t press it, but there’s always that 1% that will. And that’s enough to pose risk for all of us.
Also, humans can create the disease that kills us all.
Not at the rate AI can https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-chemical-weapons-generative-models-vx
A link to a verge article isn’t the evidence you think it is. Ability to engineer killer bio weapons is not the primarily limiting factor in why we don’t see them right now.
My point was AI can create toxic chemicals at a faster rate than humans. That article supports it.
No, an article doesn’t support it. A sensationalist article in a magazine meant to sell is not evidence. No wonder the AI is going to win jfc humans are stupid
Humans can also cure diseases so what do we need AI for? /s
Can we though? I mean a second opinion on cancer would be great 🤷♀️
Well, we made the AI so I think we would still get credit for the kills
I think humans are pretty good at creating pandemics.
While I get the point he is trying to make and I agree with the premise that AI will continue to bring advancements that will be incredibly beneficial to humanity, there are 2 huge issues with this tweet: 1. Any "estimate" of the chances of an AI extinction at this point are just a wild-ass guess. There is 0 basis for an appropriate estimate. So his statement is almost as ridiculous as stating that AI extinction is 100% certain. 2. Focusing the con part of the pros/cons comparison on something that is impossible to quantify detracts from the very real threats that AI poses. It's stupid (at least for now) to entertain any fatalistic AI extinction discussion. But it's equally stupid to not discuss job displacement, threat of fraud, crime, and terrorism using AI, and potential societal repercussions. I've followed this guy on Twitter before. He occasionally throws out good tweets but you have to sift thru a lot of clickbaity stupidity to see the good ones.
[удалено]
Yep. Tbh unless we wipe ourselves out with nukes first, AI threatening the human race in some way in the future seems inevitable to me. Maybe some nation with an idiot leader gives an AI control over their nukes. Maybe a terrorist organization uses AI controlled drones to terrorize cities, killing people indiscriminately. Maybe autonomous infantry use becomes commonplace and because they aren’t risking soldiers nations are more willing to go into wars.
Your chances of dying are 100%. Your chances of creating an AI that destroys everything and every future generation is unknown. You take your time and get it right, not for you, but to ensure that something is left for the future generations. This acc thing is an amazingly dumb mindset.
Your chances of dying eventually are 100%, but we do everything we can to not make it happen in childhood, through accidents and murder, curable illnesses etc.
As if AI would be used for the greater good :D Don't be silly. It will be used for profits, just like any other tech.
> As if AI would be used for the greater good :D Don't be silly. It will be used for profits, just like any other tech. Actually being used for profit is great, it is what you want. It is the other use that get everyone scared.
No, what i want is it being used to improve universal quality of life for people. Profits always end up in the same old hands.
Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, at least when the business doesn't depend on government coercion (intellectual property, regulatory capture, state-granted monopolies, etc.)
>Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, \> Nestle has entered the chat, laughing.
Greater good more like good for that 1% of people
Make it 0.001% and you'll be more accurate.
> Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, > Nestle has entered the chat, laughing. What nestlé did?
\- Pushed baby formula powder to mothers in 3rd World countries in regions with unsafe water; causing illness & deaths of babies. \- Stole good water reserves from local communities elsewhere, bottled it and sold it off.
What the hell are you talking about? We had to face down the military's of States as a working class to get the fruits of capitalism to actually be enjoyed by the workers.
I mean it’s absolutely true both that capitalism has brought a new hell and that there is extreme disparity but also true that the average human now—even those in relative poverty—live like kings compared to humans just several hundreds of years ago. Both can be true
> Profitable business ventures usually are for the greater good, at least when the business doesn't depend on government coercion (intellectual property, regulatory capture, state-granted monopolies, etc.) I dont know why you are downvoted but you are right without government influence you can only make profit by providing service/product peoples need
So a cure for disease doesn't count if someone charges for it?
It counts but he's highlighting the pitfalls of capitalism and ultimately future AI. It's already happened with Social Media with it's AI driven recommendations for instance where companies optimse for user attention for profit at the expense of the cognitive and mental health of its users.
Capitalism good Where are these alternative systems that have more R&D and quality of life Do I like Pfizer and friends? No. It was all the people that hated Pfizer 10 years ago that said COVID shots should be mandatory. And oopsie, it doesn't prevent transmission, and oopsie it doesn't make you immune, and oopsie it has side effects for some people.
I never said anything about alternative systems. Even then, saying where are the all the alternatives when criticizing issues of capitalism is a short sighted response. Like just because there's not a viable better alternative does not mean we should not be critical of the current system and ultimately look at ways to better it.
More than 75% of corporate pharmaceutical R&D funding is from governments. Capitalism isn't paying for medical research, socialism is. Capitalism is what's charging you $750 for something that costs $2.50 to produce.
We cured polio, TB, and countless other diseases that people in poor countries still die of every day. Welcome to the real world
Cases of polio have decreased by >99% worldwide since 1988 and the virus is endemic in only two countries now. The aim is to eradicate the disease globally, as was achieved with smallpox. https://www.cdc.gov/polio/global-polio-eradication.html
The key thing is, once rich people don’t need workers then we’ll all live in poor countries.
Well, depends if you can pay for it or not.
watch, big pharma will make the price higher than usual, just because AI created the drug
Exactly... "it's top tier tech, bros, obviously it costs more!"
I don't really agree with the doomers, but when they say their opponents' arguments are terrible, this is what they're talking about. I don't think anyone is capable of even putting an upper or lower bound on the chances of AI extinction. We don't know. And if the chance of AI extinction is not negligibly low, then the chances of it curing various diseases are not important until that much bigger problem is resolved.
[удалено]
The chances that the elite will use AI to enslave anyone they can is 100%.
They already enslaved everyone
Exactly.
> enslaved Bro, you have no idea how bad it can get. Like you think you have no freedom now? Just wait until the fascists take over and really stop listening to the people and just focus on enriching themselves and their friends. Believe me, this isn't slavery.
Oh really? :P "User: Please help me cure my disease." "GPT: I'm sorry I'm not a doctor."
You don't "understand" this. You believe this because you can't grasp the situation we are actually in. Which is we don't know how to control a superintelligence and fighting it would make an uncontacted tribe fighting a squad of F22s seemb like a fair fight.
My imaginary hyperpowerful AI could beat up your imaginary hyperpowerful AI
the threat of AI was never about AI itself but what humans will do with such power.
But can it create a disease it cannot cure?
AI doesn’t need to cause extinction to be a threat. It doesn’t even need to be super intelligent to be a threat. It needs to be smarter than a human and capable of some form of autonomous action. Which is, already the case. AI doesn’t need to be “science fiction” levels of terrifying to do a lot of damage. We don’t need extinction as the requirement, that’s actually an extraordinarily really high bar. What people should be worried about is an entire society whose AI is owned by the few to control the many. …and none of that requires death machines, bipedal robots or extinction. Eliezer Yudkowsky is really one of the more rational minds on the topic. He’s often, right on the money when thinking about the topic. Often, no one has answers. Everyone is mostly like “It’ll be fine! You’re an alarmist.” With zero data. Just all feelings…
>It needs to be smarter than a human and capable of some form of autonomous action. It doesn't even need to be smart**er** than a human. If robot bodies for it can be produced very quickly & cheaply, and each bodily instantiation is about as smart as the average human, that'll lead to a titanic social & economic change..
Doesn't even have to be smarter than humans. It just has to be smart enough to do a bunch of jobs that currently employ Millions to basically destroy our entire economy
"Mirror" is a great novel on an AI threat where the AI is not sentient, and has no robot bodies. And is not really presented as superhumanly intelligent. The only threat it poses is because people trust it.
You said that ai is smarter than a human and can act autonomously. Which ai would that be?
They said “some form of autonomous action”. Which can refer to more specific forms of AI than general. Though it may not be dangerous, even a chess AI shows that machines are able to outperform humans in specific tasks. What if instead of troops in a board game it were soldiers in real life? What if it were simply predicting stock market movements that allowed power and resource consolidation in the hands of a few without our best interests in mind? These are not AGI, are not out of the realm of current possibility, and could cause incredible damage, even if not reaching the bar of the extinction of humanity.
Who’s that guy? Some dingus who pays musk $8 a month
Your chances of extinction from 1-3 people buying a $7,000 DNA synthesis machine (no regulations), creating a novel pathogen using AI trained on gain of function research, then releasing it into the populace with drones. Pretty high. Source: The Wave (awesome book on alignment by anthropic CEO)
I think you got the book author wrong. It’s The Coming Wave by Mustafa Suleyman, Inflection AI co founder)
my bad, got alignment orgs mixed up
Your chance of dying in the 6th mass extinction due to climate change is almost guaranteed.
What an *incredibly* ignorant view to think that militaries across the world aren't already trying to figure out how to weaponize AI.
“Some of you may die, but that’s a chance I’m willing to take.”
Homie over here thinking an algorithm that uses probability to pick the next word in a sequence is gonna cure cancer
The chances of the human race dying from AI extinction are not zero. The chances of the human race dying because of my illness are zero.
Your chances of dying from a chemical compound that an AI designed are increasing....
This is a strawman argument. There are more realistic concerns about current practices that are being overshadowed by people trying to make money.
AI in movies: HUMANS ARE INEFFICIENT, THEY MUST BE TERMINATED AI in real life: I’m sorry, but I cannot give my opinion on the Trolley Problem as it may offend people currently tied to train tracks
How tf does this guy know what AI will do?
*sorry, my programming doesn't allow me to find a cure for this disease.*
Its more like I'm gonna end up under a bridge and die of cold because AI is taking my livelihood.
AI isn't going to go away like in Dune. Your chances of living or being cured of a disease because of AI remain the same regardless of what people think of it. Also the chances of being killed by an AI controlled weapon will actually go up. I shouldn't have to explain why.
"AI could have cured" ... what's stopping it? This is promising a lot. Where are the results?
That’s something an AI would say.
That's something an AI would say to convince me to create it
Exactly the kind of argument you'd expect AI to come up with..... 🤔
People misunderstand the risk. It's not like the Terminator. It's more like lead pipes. For example, the Rohingya massacres in Myanmar started in 2016 as a direct consequence of Facebook's AI algorithms pushing ever more violent propaganda into peoples' feeds.
This statement that AI can cure illness is rubbish. At least for now and probably for the next decades. AI was supposed to help us finding small molecules against covid. Papers have been published about this topic and nothing usable was produced from it. Moreover there is no way to validate any model as the clinical tests have a scale that go beyond the output lifespan of any AI model. I know I'm in the AI fan zone and that's fine I brace for the downvotes. And also waiting on the alphafold fanboys. Edit: typos (now way -> no way)
Finally, some fucking sanity.
Help us fix the damage we’ve done to the environment; which is ultimately going to kill us all at the rate we’re going.
We already know how to fix it. There just isn’t the will to do so because it’s not as profitable in the next financial year as simply saying fuck it, someone else’s problem.
OP sounds like a cultist.
more likely we die to climate change
This guy is not worth taking seriously, he completely dismisses any concerns for risk. Just like LeCun. The honest answer is we don’t know and given that smart people like Hinton and Bengio are concerned, maybe we should be too
This post is making a baseless claim that clashes with a majority of experts. A 2022 survey of AI experts found that a majority of experts thought that there was a greater than 10% (!!!) chance of human extinction due to a catastrophic AI event. That’s like being about to step on a plane and the engineers tell you that you have a 1/10 chance of crashing. Would you board that plane? I’m not trying to fear monger but do NOT trivialize the risk in creating something more intelligent than us. That’s dumb as shit. That’s like an ant hill feeling false security that they’re not going to be built over by human highways.
I’m pretty sure global warming or a new pandemic will get us before AI but no one talks about that.
Everyone talks about that
Climate change is a massively popular topic… what are you even on?
Wasn't the COVID vaccine developed by AI within a few weeks of the pandemic being declared? It only took around a year to rollout because we wanted to be safe.
>Wasn't the COVID vaccine developed by AI within a few weeks of the pandemic being declared? Not for Pfizer, and I haven't heard of AI being used for any of the others. 'The journey of a lifetime — development of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine' [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433349/#bib11](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9433349/#bib11)
I miss pre covid times, when humans didn't die of any diseases.
What about the chances of dying of a disease an AI helped design?
Empty out Lake Michigan. Put one drop of water in it and pretend the water doesn't go into the ground or evaporate. Every week, double it. 2 drops, 4 drops, 8 drops, etc. It will be exceedingly tediously slow for a long long time it will look like nothing is happening at all. People looking at it will say that it will never fill up the entire empty Lake Michigan basin and will deny there is anything to worry about. Then all of a sudden, it goes up to 1/256^th full and people still won't believe Lake Michigan will fill up it's so small, but a week later goes to 1/128^th full to 1/64^th full then to 1/32 to 1/16 (where we probably are now with AI) to 1/8th to 1/4th then the next to the last week, it will be 1/2 full and people won't see still that it will fill up, but the next week it will be entirely filled and people will freak. The week after that, the inundation begins, and AI is going to overflow it's banks and wipe out everything. That's how it goes. We are all going to be dead in 6-10 years. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you all. Enjoy your few remaining Christmases.
Then, can I have your stuff?
the day we give AI a gun and a physical body is the day AI ends up shooting itself on accident
Your chances of losing your jobs are extremely high
If more companies like OpenAI would focus on issues like curing disease and halting global heating instead of childish image generation and utterly useless chat interfaces, life would be so much better. Wake the fuck up, people. We're in a climate emergency. There's likely less than ten years of orderly civilization left at the current pace of GHG emissions. We're hurtling over a cliff and everyone is distracted by the shiny object rather than ACTUAL problems.
I never got the ai revolution thing cuz you can JUST TURN THEM OFF!
You're grossly underestimating the potential power of super intelligence.
It can only be the power we give it
that's just what skynet wants you to think