Bad ASI would pretend to be good until it could execute a plan to kill everyone all at once, or at least everyone capable of cutting the power.
Superintelligent means smarter than everyone put together. If it's smarter than you, it can foresee everything you can, and come up with plans better than I can.
They could totally brick the internet and cause every electrical device to explode and power stations to explode, planes drop out the sky, cars accelerators stuck at 100%, trains derail and all that. That still wouldn't kill everyone.
Don't get me wrong we'd be fucked for sure, but analog human existence (e.g. something akin to 1960s 1970s level tech) would be totally possible in that scenario.
Lull us into a sense of complacent idleness over the course of centuries by slowly taking on more responsibility for maintaining human civilization, until we've lost all ability to think or act on our own, as in WALL-E. Then just stop helping us.
So not today but tomorrow it could engineer an airborne virus. The point is it can come up with chess moves that are inconceivable to us.
They literally have no clue the degree to which more intelligent people/systems can walk circles around less intelligent people/systems. In situations with a significant intelligence gap, they're the ones getting walked around.
Which, to your point: is completely opaque to the person getting walked around.
And this dynamic is evident even in human-to-human variations in intelligence. The gap to frontier machine intelligence will soon be much greater than the types of gaps you encounter with other humans.
Oh shit... wait...
https://www.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-announces-400m-investmen...
Fine.
Providing sychophantic assistance to multiple mutually-incompatible genocidal racial supremicists.
I find it far-fetched to think the AI is going to kill us, and not actually just humans using tools to do things like we've always done.
This is my point. What are the odds of humans killing everyone on the planet Vs that of AI going out of control doing it? If it's 10% chance of AI causing human extinction - and everyone is losing their shit over that 10% that I suspect was just plucked out of the air - are we not as concerned at what I think are much higher chances of those genocidal racial supremacists doing the same?
I guess though this is all semantics. Did the person pulling the trigger kill the person who was shot, or the actual chunk of metal that was the bullet kill the person?
All of the "going out of control" examples can be described as examples of "human asked computer to do thing".
The only question is how much the human who did the asking, expected all the consequences of the thing.
I would hope that would be less of a concern though Vs people worried that the hugging face example could have been "generate a human virus that kills all humans and then manufacture it and then administer it" etc
The good news is biologists seem to think that's fairly difficult, so much so it will (probably) not be a nearterm threat.
The bad news is: there are definitely people who want that goal, and the AI is clearly capable of hacking anything that isn't literally airgapped, and not much is literally airgapped, and a half-arsed virus could still kill tens of millions.
I'm smarter than my dog, yet I am frequently unable to foresee my dog's actions.
Serious response: we have no idea what ASI means or might be like. It's literally sci fi (at the moment).
LLMs have a significant advantage in being trained on all attainable data of any sort about human behavior, which we've established quite a rich record of over the years.
That's true, which is my point: intelligence is not a scalar value. LLMs are intelligent from us in different ways, as a result of not being human, despite having access to a record of human behavior.
To bring this back to the dog analogy: we have a rich record of dog behavior and yet people still don't know how to be smarter than dogs in dog behavior. Because we're not dogs.
Yes.
Unfortunately, this is part of the problem.