> Their design appears to have it roots in the (false) idea that what was holding back nuclear was perception of safety, rather than cost.
And why do you think they cost so much? Because people need to believe they are safe from catastrophic failure
5,959 karma · joined August 13, 2020
And why do you think they cost so much? Because people need to believe they are safe from catastrophic failure
Is what you're saying that since UBI would disconnect someone's production from their income, then this will cause shortages of goods? I think UBI only works if the income generated by it is tied to production. That production would not be generated by human labor, but instead by robot labor. I think if you disconnect that then the system would not work, but why would you need to?
Also AGI almost certainly does not equal able to suffer. For example animals can suffer but would probably not meet the definition of AGI. we could create things that feel suffering even if they do not meet the definition of AGI.
So a better question might be: “can we detect if we create a system that can suffer?” And just drop the AGI part entirely. Then that gets us back to defining “suffering”. Agreeing on the definition always seems to be the hard part…
> It is great that some AI companies are proposing solutions to challenges raised by their own technology, but we should not expect them to lead the charge. Some of the issues are outside their area of expertise, and in a democratic society it’s not their role to decide these things. Instead, solutions should be developed through a public democratic process that includes elected officials, policymakers, educators, health workers, local officials, and community leaders.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the question Gates is asking here. He’s not asking “how this going to play out?”, he’s asking “how can we impact how this will play out?”
He makes specific proposals like AI token and robot taxes. I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions.
I think AI taxes potentially make sense. His idea of Human Reserved is fascinating. It might not be his idea but I’ve never heard it described like that before
> We conclude that while context files are useful for specifying non-standard coding practices, any attempts to improve performance should be rigorously evaluated before deployment.
The purpose of AGENTS.md is not to improve "coding performance" as the study looked at, it's to give an agent practical instructions that are useful to your specific workflow. For example you want it to use a certain format or specific tools for your project. This is stuff that can't be learned during training and must be loaded into the agent's context at the project level.
It didn't used to be this way. The line between HN and reddit is converging and now sometimes it's difficult to tell them apart.
you should probably be doing this discussion work along with Fable 5. It will give good feedback if you're working on the correct things.
> Come up with QA plan and have Codex Computer Use execute on it
QA plan should be part of the above "design + plan", not after it. The implementer needs to be able to fully test before publishing a PR. This is true whether humans or agents are writing the code.
> Manually spot check the final result (usually a sizable diff, thousands of lines, complete feature E2E, etc)
unfortunately this is not really scalable with amount of code agents can produce, so you need independent (fresh context) agent reviewers to help. Ideally they only escalate to a human when really stuck.
> I probably spend like $80 a day at least
at a small startup you should be on the $200/month plan(s).
Just glanced at it and it looks pretty good!
What can we do to make conversations around these incredibly exciting and important topics more constructive? HN is where I expect to read expert comments on these topics, has this style of conversation moved elsewhere?
This is an ungenerous take, and I think it's important to to recognize it's reasonable to support models that are both open and safe. How this would actually be achieved is unclear though. Dario is at least proposing a solution a solution, which is the model needs to pass safety testing. This is reasonable and I wouldn't conflate this with wanting to ban open weights.
I think the deeper problem might be though that once you have safe open-weight models, it will be much easier to make them unsafe. And to be specific, unsafe means proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons knowledge and similar information.
> Plan A is primarily a recommendation, not a prediction.
That sounds nothing like “religious fervor”
The fact that technology can increase existential risk for civilization is not fantasy. It’s a risk that should be reasonably discussed.
> It’s all just nonsensical hype
And he’s referring to completely real and reasonable warnings in anthropic blog posts about the exponential rate of AI development.
1. Those, like OP, that believe AI danger and disruption is all hype to boost valuations.
2. Those, like myself, that believe AI danger and disruption is very real and presents dilemmas (but also opportunities) for society, so we must tread carefully.
The first position is not logically consistent with reality. The danger is real: we have already seen hints about how this will impact everything from jobs to warfare to mental health. that danger does not increase valuation, in fact it does the opposite because of the need for government regulation.