Hacker News Reader

Comment by tpowell | Hacker News Reader

Yesterday, I randomly watched his full interview from a month ago with CBS Morning, and found the discussion much more nuanced than today's headlines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpoRO378qRY&t=16s

The next video in my recommendations was more dire, but equally as interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ&t=2847s

View on HN

Watching that interview, I got the impression that Geoff is a very curious person, driven by his sense of wonder. At the same time I couldn't help but feel that he comes across as very naive or perhaps innocent in his thinking. While he wouldn't personally use his creations for morally gray or evil things, I think it's clear we're already in living in a world where ML and AI are in the hands of people with less than pure intentions.

Why is it surprising that a full interview is more nuanced than a headline?

Did the author of the parent comment confess to surprise?

This 'On The Media' interview from a few months back is also very good: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/how-neural...

I don't understand the "safety" concerns from the example in the second video.

Yeah, this "critique" seems incredibly bad faith to me. The actual problem in this hypothetical situation exists with or without the chat bot. Should we expect chat bots to act as police?

Given his pedigree accusing him of bad faith seems missplaced.

Can you clear up specifically what about the second video you think is difficult to understand?

I saw an example of a conversation where the Snapchat 'My AI' was tricked into grooming a child, with the likely outcome being heavy regulation if left alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com