Hacker News Reader

Comment by lenerdenator | Hacker News Reader

Every time Sam Altman announces some new offering at OpenAI, I get a little more thankful I don't have any children.

A child's life is valuable each moment. There's no guarantee of security and safety for any human anywhere at any time. We can't just be paralyzed by possible negative outcomes, life requires taking risks.

(You might not want kids for some other reason, like free time, don't like kids, etc, but if you would otherwise have kids except for the dangers in the world, I'd say rethink your risk tolerance)

Possible negative outcomes seem to be becoming more and more possible. And no one cares so long as the number at the bottom of the piece of paper hits the target that was made 90 days prior.

Altman's not the only example - our reluctance to tackle things like gun violence in the US or climate change are others - but he and his ilk are a prominent example.

All of the items you mentioned: AI, gun violence, and climate change all share similarities in not presenting easy solutions. Sure, people propose half-baked solutions frequently, but that doesn't mean you can get a diverse set of opinions to agree.

I hear lots of handwringing about all of these, but I've yet to hear workable solutions that don't have significant downsides and/or involve the use of force to stop those that disagree.

Because they may turn out like him?

Heh. I'm not a part of the private St. Louis preparatory school and "drop out of Stanford when a VC tells you you're Jesus Christ" set. I doubt any of my potential offspring would be either.

No, more because Altman is an even higher form of Silicon Valley creature than we've seen before. This is a segment of society that thinks that you can directly judge something's benefit to humanity based on the IPO it could have, and pretty much nothing else. They create sea changes in society knowing that it's going to be a very rough transition for people who don't have their levels of wealth to deal with the consequences.

Previously, seeing was believing. Sure, there was Photoshop and CGI, but pictures aren't as telling as video, and most people didn't have the capital necessary to cook up anything they wanted using CGI. This, though... anyone could make up anything for any reason, with dire consequences.

Just spitballing here, what if, say, political campaigns started releasing generated video of opponents in compromising positions with minors? Or videos were posted to social media designed to create a casus belli for a country?

It won't matter for the companies making those tools; their stock prices will be fine. Well, at least until the EMP is set off near the data center.

I don't want to be responsible for a human being coming up in what is essentially a 100% post-truth world.

> thinks that you can directly judge something's benefit to humanity based on the IPO it could have

This is a deliberately cynical perspective along the tiresome ‘evil tech MBA overlord’ trope.

I don’t find it cynical enough actually; I always assumed the oligarchs see the proles as barely differentiated units of labor, much like we would see a colony of bees. Certainly that’s the way I’ve been treated for most of my life.

I only adopted this perspective after having worked in a publicly-traded company that was acquired by Oracle, for what it's worth.

So blame Larry.

Humans have never needed said technology to lie, deceive and mislead. Ignorance and human nature in general (eg confidence tricks) are a much more powerful weapons at any rate.

But the most effective defense remains the same: critical thinking.

Sadly, it's not very popular.

I know we all need to think more critically, but existence now throws more situations and decisions at people than the human brain has the ability to deeply ponder and process within a reasonable amount of time. Thus, we either use more primal reactions (like fear) or sum up the decisions in abstractions like profit that aren't nearly the catch-all we pretend they are. That's part of why these technologies are so threatening.

Because it's going to change the world in drastic ways, and it's very likely that it will be harder, in many ways, for the next generation than it was for us. The kids today will become adults in a world that is mostly foreign to all of us; there won't be precedent to fall back on or wisdom of elders to lean on. They won't recognize this or even mind that this is their reality, as it will just have always been this way for them (and the adults of today will complain about how good things used to be). And the generational cycle will continue.

My god, it's like the AI hype virus has infected your brain and enslaved it.

LLMs are not the messiah, they're not the gateway to AGI, they not even that useful given their limitations. They are a very interesting data point on the path to the next data point. The idea that there will be some mass regression due to "AI" is ridiculous. It will only benefit humanity because humanity will learn to harness it for its benefit. (What humans do to other humans with technology is another matter.) Your ancestors made the same specious claims about the horseless carriage, TV, the pill, and countless other creations.

The future is unknowable but there is no reason to think the next generation won't be better of than the current generation, just like it's been for many centuries (modulo various wars and disasters).

You are a bundle of joy, aren't you?

You nearly said the same thing I did. Are you just looking for confrontation? Like, what are you trying to get at here? Is Sam Altman himself your personal Lord and Savior and you feel the need to prove it?

These advancements will, from the perspective of adults having kids today, make things harder for their children. Just like it is for us now, which is why our parents think computers are hard to understand and also why they think home ownership is just as attainable for today's young adults as it was for them. But our children won't really mind, or even notice these difficulties as they will be very normal to them.

Our ancestors were right. For them.

Anyway, AI and LLMs will be primarily used to control and manipulate people. But that's not a new concept, it's just going to be more efficient.

That's such a bizarre, ahistorical take. Regardless of anything that Sam Altman does, living conditions for children in developed countries will remain far better than what most people have experienced since the origin of our species.

since the origin, sure, but without eg phone call centers in the Philippines because they've been replaced by AI, and without tourists to boost the economy because they've all also been fired, who's to say living conditions in develop countries will actually continue to improve or even be sustainable at current levels?

I feel the same way, although I've been cheered to learn of friends at OpenAI (and similar big tech companies) who are having kids. If they're having kids, maybe I'm wrong to be so anxious about the future. I'll be glad to be wrong about the grey world they are creating.

Then again, their kids are going to be just fine.

Now is the best time to have kids. The future rules, if you know what’s coming.

Every generation had a real or perceived existential crisis that might have prompted this type of mindset. The Great Depression, World Wars, Communism, rock music, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, global warming…

This latest one isn’t going anywhere, and humanity will almost certainly find a way to make it ‘work out’.

Yeah but there was a metric crapton of suffering in those crises. Well, except rock music and nuclear energy.

I don’t doubt it, but like I said it’s not going anywhere, and the next generation will be more prepared than ever to tackle those sorts of problems.

Also, I’d argue that rock has caused suffering. It’s indirectly responsible for the middle-of-the-road (MOR) genre, and directly responsible for Nickleback Smashmouth.

The same. That, and the crazy demographic explosion in the world.

What demographic explosion? In most developed countries at least there is a baby bust. Populations are rapidly aging.

It's not only a concern for developed nations but a global issue. While demographic growth is gradually decelerating, we are still heading towards a population of 10 billion individuals, each consuming increasingly more resources. I completely understand the reluctance to contribute to this problem.

I don't get it. Why?

The entire point of life is to reproduce. Every moment in history has technological changes. Your fear is driving you to make poor decisions. Having children is a biologically good decision.

It's a pretty neutral decision on the whole.

People tend to think the world needs their DNA walkin' around out there after they're dead. They don't think about what the world that the DNA's walkin' around in will be like.

What‘s the point of making a biologically good decision? That would be a really stupid thing to do. Maybe it‘s a good decision in terms of subjective well being (don‘t know, but pit‘s possible) or for society (quite the opposite I think, but maybe a good argument can be made) but why would you base your decision on what your genes „want“?

Hey I'll choose my "entire point in life", thank you.

When you're about to die and see yourself leaving nothing behind, you will regret it. Just another case of natural selection.

Forecast someone else's deathbed, friend, or get to know me before making such a prophecy. I will regret lots of things but not that!

But I'm dead? So why does it matter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com