If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments.
Otherwise its just bullshit
It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.
“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving
superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of
the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear
the same people express fear privately.”
Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next
decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and
are not clearly on track to.”
This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.
Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.
Ideally they’d like self-regulation. If this isn’t feasible (for example, because the public hates data centers and AI slop) their next best option is government regulation ASAP, because it is likely to be ineffective as written by our current government, and enable them as “too big to fail/too big to care” while any startups are suppressed.
From the AI industry’s point of view, if regulators say no to self-regulation, the next best thing would be governments imposing regulations ASAP. Inept government regulation (and that is what we are likely to get) would practically ensure that big tech stays big and small companies are shut out of the AI innovation race because big tech is in a much better position to “game” any rules regulators might impose. […]
There are probably less biased sources out there – this author is the CEO of an AI consulting company – but i think they’re right.
Thats why I say take it away from them completely. If the big dogs can’t handle it, no one gets it. Or its regulated to the point thats its profit us worthless
I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.
Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.
Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.
Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.
That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.
Several communities have grouped together to protest the efforts. In face of a common enemy and all that. That’s the one good thing to have come out of all this bullshit; some class camaraderie that crosses the lines of political parties.
That’s not me saying that it wouldn’t have been better had this bullshit never come around.
I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.
Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.
If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit
It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.
I believe there is truth in both sides of this argument.
Yeah but neither of those sides are in favor of the regulatory capture monopoly that liberals always think is a good idea.
That has about as much to do with reality as me believing I sing well in the shower.
Thankfully it’s not so dangerous
“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”
Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead
This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.
Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.
You and I are the only ones apparently.
Head in the sand just like climate change deniers
I wouldn’t say that, the amount of vulnerabilities it’s discovering (and capable of exploiting) is frightening
This plays into the big corps’ plans.
Ideally they’d like self-regulation. If this isn’t feasible (for example, because the public hates data centers and AI slop) their next best option is government regulation ASAP, because it is likely to be ineffective as written by our current government, and enable them as “too big to fail/too big to care” while any startups are suppressed.
But it’s not just me saying it. https://shellypalmer.com/2023/06/ai-the-unseen-threat-and-the-agi-smoke-screen/
There are probably less biased sources out there – this author is the CEO of an AI consulting company – but i think they’re right.
Thats why I say take it away from them completely. If the big dogs can’t handle it, no one gets it. Or its regulated to the point thats its profit us worthless
I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.
Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.
Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.
Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.
That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.
this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.
So what? What good has having AI “built” in the US done us?
Several communities have grouped together to protest the efforts. In face of a common enemy and all that. That’s the one good thing to have come out of all this bullshit; some class camaraderie that crosses the lines of political parties.
That’s not me saying that it wouldn’t have been better had this bullshit never come around.
I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.
Trump wants no AI regulation.
This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.
Reducing Bernie to the “opposite politician”, well that’s definitely a take for the ages.