595 karma · joined August 8, 2021
Not everyone is equally educated, the two are not mutually exclusive.
People can say either. Educated, rational and reasonable people would say yes on both if they do the risk management analysis and understand the factors driving how it will be used.
Engineering takes a first-principled approach, where upon knowing those principles you can then construct abstractly without physically building first.
Well most of corporate america certainly does, but they can just as easily be multinationals so its not really the USA other than they may have registered the entity here.
can you elaborate a bit more on what those interesting parts are?
It could just be a limitation of computation.
Its the same as mentioned in the video.
> But I was mainly responding to your comment ... > Unless GPT-4 specifically is believed to be a threat to the human race ...
That's flawed logic. A false dichotomy, and also begs the question as to who decides it is a threat.
As for whether its dangerous, I think the fact that the model they discussed in that video shipped and deployed publicly before anyone knew it had embedded knowledge of research grade chemistry capable of some horrific things, all without the knowledge of the people who designed it. It was only discovered after the fact, and that is pretty disturbing.
With dangerous and existential threats, its not considered safe until deemed unsafe, its by-default considered unsafe until deemed its safe. That's how you limit tragedies.
We can disagree, but if we do I sincerely hope you do not touch this stuff.
Another person posted a great youtube overview that sums up and covers the broad points in a 1 hour presentation.
I suggest you watch it to catch up. You'll notice one particular thing is absent, AGI sentience doomsday isn't discussed, though it is a valid risk case too, its not what most experts are concerned with. What does concern the experts is the lack of risk management, and the exponential on exponential growth.
With that kind of growth, its not enough to keep pace, you have to predict accurately where it will be and somehow exceed it, two almost impossible problems.
I highly suggest you review the video, and take the time needed to process what the experts are saying before discounting and minimizing something so impactful.
A large number of people are very concerned about this, and rightfully so because so many people don't get the risks (including yourself it seems).
These people largely aren't fearmongers either, they are experts in that field, serious engineers.
A computer can't do this you say... and that is how it has always been right up until it can, and then whole ecosystems shift seemingly overnight. This will be no different.
Let me ask you, where's the risk management? You deal with anything dangerous you've dealt with risk management. Where is it for this? Can we even evaluate a problem like this? Our main form of interaction is by code, we work in seconds it ticks in nanoseconds, by the time it receives input from us, it could have predicted and nullified our attempts to do anything if it were sentient.
Right now, its very simple, there is almost no risk management, and you and the smartest people in the world trying to tackle this problem are clawing in the dark blind, and you don't know it, but they do and the ones with true intelligence are scared shitless which is why there are so many people going on record (a thing normally that would be a career killer), trying to prevent you from driving everyone over that proverbial cliff, only its more like a dam.
For you and most other people that don't work with this stuff, its an out of context problem that will never happen, and that's fine for small things that don't cascade.
People are traditionally very bad at recognizing cascading failures before it actually happens. This is like a dam with a crack running through it that almost no one has noticed, and your home is right underneath it, in this case everyone's home is underneath it.
What could possibly go wrong with giving someone, really anyone, who doesn't recognize the risks the ability to potentially end everything if the digital dice line up just right.
Literally Everything is networked. Globally.
It doesn't even need to be Battlestar Galactica type apocalypses, though that's fairly realistic pilot about how it might go down if it became sentient. It can also do it without even being sentient by the slow Ayn Rand/John Galt route where societal mechanics do the majority of the work, all you need to do is disrupt the economic cycle between factor and non-factor markets to a sufficient degree, and people will do the rest, plenty of examples where we were able to restart in the historic record, what about those dark areas for which we have no history; without modern technology we can't grow enough food to feed half the worlds current population.
When the stakes are this high, and the risk management is so nonexistent; everyone including policy makers should be scared shitless and do something about it. If you look at things like how the Manhattan project were handled, they were done with more risk management and care for the amount of destruction potential than either bio or cyber.
Our modern day society is largely fully dependent on technology for survival. What happens when that turns against you, or just ceases to function.
I somehow don't think a disclaimer will cover that.
We won't be around to enforce it once our atoms have been reused and optimized to a more suitable purpose.
Even at the big pharamceutical companies you see these issues, often because either they don't hire the right people, or organizational management is so fragmented nothing can ever get done unless it has a clear and present danger and even then rarely.
I knew this guy who was the security guy, where security was his sole responsibility, and when asked why they don't fix a vulnerable DH group configuration on a VPN that a good number of people used (as a review item), the answer was we have a third-party monitoring service for the important stuff.
Seemed completely asnine to me at the time, I'm a generalist , but these things really aren't that complicated. Allowing pre-computation attacks on long-running encrypted connections just seems like a really bad idea.
It usually starts with lack of representation, then coercion and then compulsion. I'd say its probably closer to 60 years, all you really need is one bad large generational cohort to get the snowball rolling, and then it becomes almost impossible to reverse, 2 generations down; with the standard generational time period being 20 years.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-...
This is a company taking user contributions as their own, aggregating it, and using their work for free to make money off it.
The fact that no matter how hard you work, or how good you are, you have to die or go to another world before you'll see anything you might want to do because there is nothing for you here.
Its sad that the world we've made for our younger generation is such an unlivable place for so many that this is seen as one of the only escapes.
Sure its not entirely our fault since the boomer generation is largely to blame for this, the cohort generally chose to enriching themselves over their kids, and maintained that through political pull for far longer than they should have largely as a result of better medical technology.
Also saying hashes are irreversible doesn't actually make that so.
They need to retool the incentives and taxes, basically make it so its not worth growing beyond 8% marketshare.
Anything larger and you get coercion, influence, and monopolistic practices.
Honestly, taking their work on its face, they really don't have any credibility.
They misattribute, and show a complete lack of understanding regarding what drives cost-push inflation. They promote misleading and false ideas about what you can do about it too.
People have no say about what prices are when business sector concentration exceeds a certain point, they have to feed themselves.
The article is garbage, and sector concentration is or has exceeded what was previously known during https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Food security is at the top of a short list on what causes unrest, historically speaking.
Its beyond being just stupid, but lets be clear, these people are really stupid psychopaths seeking profit, and they have the pull to do it until they don't.
Coercion and Compulsion are intolerable acts and parties have gotten started for these things before (1767-1776)
Anyone that knows anything realizes what a shill position this is. In many respects, we really need to start punishing businesses that engage in malign influence campaigns.
Its just like this article here. Completely false if you look at the publicly released data, but they still publish it, and if you are too dumb to tell otherwise you end up supporting them.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/location-location-locatio...
Read what was said, and make sure you look up the definition of words like over-generalization beforehand (its a logical fallacy). If you can't pass reading comprehension at a grade school level, there seriously is almost no skilled job your suitable at. This is basic fundamental stuff. You need to do this for almost everything in a professional environment.
> And these people, there are the ones telling the average rest what they should do
Following that reasoning, you can literally claim anyone who communicates anything is telling someone what they should do, and the author tends to fall into this bias to group people doing just that. So anyone they want or perceive as negative then falls into this group which in fact encompasses all humanity (because communication is inherent in almost everything we do). This is literally in the definition of over-generalization, which is what I said (if you go back and read). Its also very common and manipulative tactic in identity politics often used for malign infuence against those that don't critically think to dupe them.
Unfortunately, this lacks any kind of rational thought, is biased and follows flawed reasoning, and as a result lacks any kind of credibility, and rightfully so.
Looks more like a malign influence piece meant to distract.
Takes an identity politics approach, mixes in a small bit of truth, and a lot of insufficiently backed opinion, with known flawed metrics to back it up.
Overall a waste of time. Very disappointing.
Took awhile to get the approval but when you have a large pile of RMAs sitting for 6mo to a year due to a bad firmware update, for only a standard 1-2 year limited warranty, and they stop responding, and replacements were back-ordered for ages. Well, you do what you have to.