Hacker News Reader

Comment by GolDDranks | Hacker News Reader

I find it odd that more people don't realize that we are talking about risk of elevated *general intellectual-domain capabilities* as a resource. To be clear, I'm not claiming that LLM + RF is necessarily THE technology that poses the risk, the risk is in recursive self-improvement and whatever technologies will result.

It's very clear to that any specifics couldn't capture the risks, because the capabilities, including the risks, are one level higher than any specific techonolgy. It is the process of advancing technology itself, in accelerating speed, that poses the risk.

View on HN

The reason I use coding and vulnerabilities as an example is that it is a concrete example. It is what people pay for now when they buy AI. And the risks are specific and can be examined in detail. Some threads on this board currently show that even these more concrete and specific risks are often overblown, with LLMs finding low risk bugs and sucking up resources to evaluate and fix them.

Here you are claiming that AI products are going to reach AGI or RSI in the foreseeable future. Of course you can't "capture the risks" with specifics because those are inherently unspecific futures. It's a bit like saying when we invent antigravity all hell will break loose.

I would believe those future risks more if there were a progression of risks. What other than finding vulns has those characteristics?

What poses the risk is the combination of abilities past a certain point enabling you to do basically anything.

While being unable to judge whether you should in the first place.

ai cant move atoms at unlimited rate and also have limited energy. so your claim that "basically anything" is a bit of a stretch.

That's what you believe, but you might be wrong.

So you're saying that AI might invent infinite energy and other technologies indistinguishable from magic? I mean I can't prove that's impossible but you're making a pretty lame statement that essentially amounts to a religious prophecy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com