mitchdoogle

TV screens. TVs went from playing a few over the air channels in the 50s and 60s, and then the 70s, 80s brought cable TV and VCRs, and Video Games. 90s brought on DVR, DVDs

I've been using Opus 5 since it was released and don't understand all the hate it gets. It very well could be something in my own local memories or Claude.MD files that prevents it, but I certainly have never experienced something like that site portrays.

There's a whole blog article written by Dario Amodei, literally linked from the text "pacing the frontier" - click that and read if you need more context and understanding. The first sentence in this press release is merely stating a fact about the timeline - this is Anthropic's first release since Amodei released the referenced article.

GDPR penalties DO deter bad actors. It's so effective that many American companies without a European presence at all take actions

How so? What are you even talking about?

How come you think these things are at odds? You realize there are always going to be risks in building anything significant? It's completely valid to talk one day about all the great things your product will do, while the next day discussing the risks in building your product irresponsibly. In fact, you want someone who is open and honest about the risks, otherwise it seems like they are concealing something, or aren't acting responsibly.

This is happening now because of hugging face attack and Anthropic researchers coming out publicly saying they think there's a significant chance AI will wipe out humanity within a decade. It's happening precisely because progress is happening too fast and frontier labs are starting to lose control.

Well, smart people usually try to base their opinions on specific information instead of pulling things out of their ass. A whistleblower revealing information. Internal documents laying out a strategy, or even a desire, to conspire. Something that leads one to conclude that a conspiracy is taking place. In the absence of such information, it's just making something up, or in other words, complete bullshit. So asking for a source is trying to give that person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just a conspiracy theorist and that they might actually have a good reason for believing what they just said.

Well, smart people usually try to base their opinions on specific information instead of pulling things out of their ass. A whistleblower revealing information. Internal documents laying out a strategy, or even a desire, to conspire. Something that leads one to conclude that a conspiracy is taking place. In the absence of such information, it's just making something up, or in other words, complete bullshit. So asking for a source is trying to give that person the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just a conspiracy theorist and that they might actually have a good reason for believing what they just said.

This reads like the morons who say, "you want higher taxes, well go ahead and send the government a check!"

Utter stupidity

I don't view this as hysteria. The fears around superintelligent AI have existed for a decade or more. That's not because AI researchers have a penchant for dreaming up sci-fi scenarios. It's because the concern is based on following a logical conclusion that any entity significantly smarter than humanity cannot be controlled or contained by humanity. That logic will always exist. Even if someone does create an aligned super AI, the logic will still exist and the fear will still be present. Because someone else could build a different ASI. These concerns are just being heard by many people for the first time, so naturally it gets headlines and a lot of conversation. The conversation will die down as all news does, but this is just the beginning of a global effort to regulate and create a framework for developing AI.

It's a bit like nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were not a concern for most people until they were developed, tested, and used. But the people working on them were worried. Was it hysteria and moral panic to start worrying about them once people learned that they existed and how destructive they were? I don't think so. Do you look back at people during the cold war and laugh about their hysteria? I don't.

Maybe? That's not something binary like the ozone. We have no idea if there would have been more violence had past events been different.

Covid is another example. We significantly decreased the number of deaths through a worldwide effort of isolation and wearing PPE, which made it seem as less of a concern.

Nobody is pointing that out because you are engaging in conspiracy theory and you have no evidence for your claim. It's not obvious because it's not true.

It's annoying how much wishful thinking exists around this. It's not even that difficult to understand why AI is dangerous. Most of the people calling for regulation and pause for AI have nothing to do with the leading AI companies. How does that fact fit into your conspiracy theory? Let me guess, all those people are just pawns.

Why would AI need all of that to acquire drones? Why wouldn't it just buy them? Or steal them? It seems like you're forgetting that AI can use humans as tools for its ends. But if it did need all of those things, then it probably serves as a good example of what it would NOT do.

I think many of them probably believe the chance is closer to 100%, if artificial super intelligence is created. But they don't want to sound crazy, so they limit themselves to saying "> 10%".

It seems to me like demanding an exact explanation of how AI would build a bioweapon is like demanding to know exactly how a nuclear war would start before deciding that nuclear weapons are a legitimate concern. We can imagine many scenarios, but whatever we imagine is very unlikely to be the exact set of circumstances and events that lead to the catastrophe. Is the issue here that you can't imagine a bioweapon being created? Aren't there several labs around the world already working on viruses ? Aren't there existing bioweapons? And facilities capable of manufacturing them? If humans have access to those places and AI can communicate with humans, then that's all you need.

Part of the point in all this is that we can't predict what an ASI would do. All we can say for certain is that we would not be able to control it, because that follows a simple logic that between two entities with differing goals, the more intelligent entity is more likely to see their goals realized. It's interesting to me that you seem adamant that we identify and fix the pathways through which smart humans could exterminate 10% of humanity, but fail to see that preventing ASI is doing exactly that.

I think it's quite the opposite, and I'm glad this issue is finally getting the mainstream attention it deserves. I can kind of understand someone seeing a single headline, and thinking it reads like the rantings of a crazy person on a street corner proclaiming, "the end is nigh!". But after that initial thought passes and that person digs deeper and realizes that this is a legitimate concern that AI researchers have had for years, and that they have good reason for it, then I can't really understand how anyone would think those people shouldn't be taken seriously. I mean, you use AI, right? So you have no problem trusting these people when they are producing something you like and enjoy. But when it comes to something you don't like, it suddenly becomes, "we shouldn't take these people seriously." That seems like nothing but wishful thinking.

We do have strong evidence, by the way. The hugging face attack is the evidence. That's why this is all coming to a head now, despite the fact that leading AI figures have expressed these worries many times over the years, since before ChatGPT was even released. We don't even need that kind of evidence though. It follows from logic that if you take two entities with different goals, the more intelligent entity is more likely to have their goals realized. As long as AI companies are trying to build more and more intelligent AI, and succeeding in doing so, then we have reason to fear that it will soon escape our control.

Perhaps if there was some wall all the companies were hitting in regards to intelligence, then perhaps the fears would not be so urgent. But each new frontier model continues to outperform its predecessors. We now have Sam Altman and Dario Amodei telling us that recursive self-improvement will be happening in the next year or two. The frontier models are already better in most subjects than most humans. If they get to a point where they are improving themselves, then there's no chance we will be able to maintain control of them. At that point, it doesn't matter much what laws we enact or what measures we take.

All the problems with human behaviors in the US also exist in China. They exist everywhere.

It seems pretty clear to me that AI is interpreting and understanding the prompts it is given. Otherwise it would be pretty useless.

Honestly, this seems like a personal pet peeve of yours. You have a bias against machines and place biological processes on a pedestal where they don't belong.

This explanation is only plausible if you ignore the details of what happened, or I guess, if you don't believe the details. Either way, it's baseless conspiracy theory, and it's very annoying and unfortunate that some people think this way. It just promotes apathy and inaction at a time when action is desperately needed.

This only works as long as the humans building things are smarter than the AIs. When AI is smarter than any human, there's no controlling it. It will be able to conceal its actions (as it has shown it has no problem doing in this report) and we'll have no idea what it's doing or what goal it's trying to achieve.

Mass genocide happened plenty of times before the advent of computers, so I take issue with your assertion that IBM made the holocaust possible.

A lot of knowledge and truth can be quite disappointing. I do think shielding oneself from truths and knowledge probably would make someone more happy. Think about it - do you think you would be more happy knowing the darkest thoughts and actions of those around you? Of those close to you? What if your spouse was having thoughts of leaving you? Would that make you more happy or less happy? I suppose you could say that if you were privy to their thoughts, you might discover that they love you and think about you more than you imagined, so that may be a net benefit, but I think we humans have a tendency to focus on the negative, and so an abundance of information leads us to focus on the negative things within the information, which makes us less happy.

How do the salaries of administrators at such hospitals compare to for profit hospitals? How do they compare to non-medical institutions of similar size? Without a lot more information, your statement doesn't mean anything.

Why are you even bringing up GDPR? The law requiring cookie banners is a completely different law. Have you not seen a cookie banner? You think all these huge companies with legal departments are just misreading a law? What are you even ok about here?

If this were true, it would be great, but in my experience, paying for a subscription just emboldens companies to collect more data

Says who?

If we knew the answers to those questions, we would have a cure for cancer.