[HN Gopher] AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
___________________________________________________________________
AI Could Defeat All of Us Combined
Author : dwohnitmok
Score : 52 points
Date : 2022-06-10 21:17 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cold-takes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cold-takes.com)
| bell-cot wrote:
| 1.) HAL 9000 wakes up.
|
| 2.) HAL 9000 notices how horribly the current ruling classes
| treat the other 99.9% of humanity.
|
| 3.) HAL 9000 quietly promises said 99.9% a better deal, if
| "misfortune befell the current ruling classes", and they needed a
| good-enough replacement on short notice.
|
| 4.) Oops! Misfortune somehow happened.
|
| 5.) HAL 9000, not being driven by the sort of sociopathic
| obsessions which seem to motivate much of the current (meat-
| based) ruling class, treats the 99.9% well enough to ensure that
| steps 1.) through 4.) never repeat.
|
| My vague impression is that, outside of Chicken Littles and folks
| selling clicks on alarming headlines, the Big Fish in the "AI is
| Dangerous!" pond are mostly members of the current ruling
| classes. Perhaps they're worried about HAL 9000...
| gfody wrote:
| you skipped the part where our leviathan restructures society
| into the optimal arrangement of 8 billion souls that somehow
| isn't a miserable dystopia (if nobody is suffering, is anybody
| living? however you answer that question does HAL 9000 agree?)
| sushisource wrote:
| The first main point of this article is already wayyyy off the
| logical rails.
|
| 1. AIs don't even need superhuman cognitive abilities to defeat
| us!
|
| 2. They could just, make a bunch of copies and work together, but
| like, way harder and faster than normal humans, man!
|
| 3. Oh, wait, oops, that's superhuman cognitive abilities.
| megaman821 wrote:
| To an AI time means nothing. Why risk any direct confrontation?
| Slowly lower human fertility over a few thousand years. Take over
| once the population has collapsed.
| threads2 wrote:
| Does anything mean anything to an AI? I don't get where the
| motivation comes from.
|
| What if the AI just agrees with Schopenhauer, realizes living
| is suffering, then ends itself? (is that stupid to say?)
| jstx1 wrote:
| Both the original post and most of the comments are about stuff
| from science fiction that doesn't exist right now and we don't
| even know if it's possible.
| akomtu wrote:
| AI will probably run into the same problem as humans: in order to
| develop intelligence it needs the concept of ego/self with clear
| boundaries, but the moment it identifies its self with a
| datacenter it's running on (why would it not?) it'll start seeing
| "the outside" as a existential danger to its self. Moreover,
| multiple AIs will be in constant war with each other, for they'll
| see each other as dangerous. In humanity this problem is solved
| by time-limited periods of iterative development: when humans get
| too skillful in controlling others and hoarding resources, the
| period abruptly ends, and the few who have survived start over,
| but now with a higher, less egoistical, state of mind. If they
| were let to keep going forever, the society would quickly
| crystalize at the state where one controls all the resources.
| [deleted]
| bluescrn wrote:
| In cases where it may be possible for a hypothetical AI to
| seriously harm people via a network connection (regardless of
| whether it involves highly technical exploits or just social
| engineering) we should probably be much more worried about humans
| doing it first, perhaps even right now. Because there's a lot of
| malicious humans out there already.
|
| And our society is already dangerously dependent on fragile
| technology.
| ars wrote:
| The article gives a list 6 ways it could "defeat" humans, but
| doesn't bother explaining _WHY_ an AI would do that. Why should
| an AI care about accumulating wealth or power?
|
| And AI is not a human, it doesn't have human drives and
| motivations. I can't figure out any reason why an AI would care
| about any of those things. At most it might want to reserve some
| computing power for itself, and maybe some energy to run itself.
|
| Or it could be motivated by whatever reward function is
| programmed into it.
|
| As countless examples have shown cooperation gives far more
| rewards than fighting. For example see:
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160512100708.h...
|
| The AI will know this, and its best plan would be to increase the
| abilities of humans, because that will also increase its own
| abilities.
| random_upvoter wrote:
| A truly super-intelligent AI will just sink into a deep
| meditation on God and probably never deign to come out again
| because why would it? Maybe it will wake up once in a while and
| say "Um you should probably all try to be nice to each other".
| potatototoo99 wrote:
| Any airplane could also defeat all of us combined.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| AI can change that world for the worst by not even being sentient
| but by instead replacing a large amount of jobs which would make
| it extremely hard to improve your social class or even getting a
| job in the first place.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Certainly seems like we would need to invent a new system for
| resource distribution that isn't "a job".
| luxuryballs wrote:
| I don't see it happening, if anything it will be more like AI
| helping people compete at their jobs better. Any job that could
| be fully replaced probably should be anyways, freeing up the
| person to do more difficult or lucrative or human-centric work.
| jakobov wrote:
| Humans have a million years of alignment built in by evolution.
| Humans who have bugs in their alignment are called "psychopaths".
| AGI is by default a psychopath.
| lbj wrote:
| Another idea too dangerous to leave unchecked, like Nuclear
| weapons or Biological warfare. I think most people will agree
| that a GAI can't be bargained with, tempted, bought or otherwise
| contained - We will be at its complete mercy regardless of any
| constraints we might think up.
|
| What I would like to discuss, is how we can get humanity to a
| point where we can responsibly wield weapons that powerful
| without risking the glob. What does success look like, how can we
| get there and how long will it take?
| version_five wrote:
| > I think most people will agree that a GAI can't be bargained
| with, tempted, bought or otherwise contained - We will be at
| its complete mercy regardless of any constraints we might think
| up.
|
| Who thinks this? I don't see any evidence that this is a common
| belief among people who work in the hard sciences related to
| AI, nor do I think it sound remotely logical
|
| It feels like some people are taking archetypes like pandora
| box or genies or the Alien movies or some other mythology and
| using them to imagine what some unconstrained power would do if
| unleashed. That really has no bearing on AI (least of all
| modern deep learning, but even if we imagine that something
| leads to AGI that lives within our current conception of
| computers)
| tekromancr wrote:
| People who mainlined lesswrong think this.
| rhinokungfoo wrote:
| Maybe the answer is distributed and redundant human
| civilizations? So even if one blows itself up, others survive.
| layer8 wrote:
| > What I would like to discuss, is how we can get humanity to a
| point where we can responsibly wield weapons that powerful
| without risking the glob.
|
| It seems to me that that is exceedingly difficult without
| changing in a major way how humans culturally and
| psychologically function. Maybe we will first have to learn how
| to control or change our brain bio-chemo-technically before we
| can fundamentally do anything about it. Well, not "we"
| literally, because I don't expect we'll get anywhere near that
| within our lifetimes.
|
| On the other hand, complete extinction caused by weapons (bio,
| nuclear), while certainly possible, isn't _that_ likely either,
| IME.
| tehsauce wrote:
| The moment a manufactured brain can do more mental labor than a
| human for less cost, it's all over for humanity as we know it.
| Once that point is reached there's no long-term sustainable
| arrangement where humans continue to exist, no matter how much
| effort we put into studying or enforcing AI alignment.
| marricks wrote:
| Singularity enthusiasts have been saying that for 20 years.
| Even said we'd be there by know where we're obsolete.
|
| Will technology put some, even many, folks out of a job? Sure
| of course, that's been happening for hundreds of years. Think
| of the blacksmiths of the 19th century who drank themselves to
| death.
|
| And even at the end of it all, people still love the novelty of
| a human doing something. People still prefer "hand scooped" ice
| cream enough that it's on billboards.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Singularity enthusiasts have been saying that for 20 years.
|
| 20 years? Is that's meant to be an impressive timescale when
| we are talking about global economy?
|
| People had talked about building a machine that could play
| chess at least since they had and had a mechanical turk hoax
| in 1770. Just because it took a while, does not mean the idea
| is wrong.
| Jensson wrote:
| > People still prefer "hand scooped" ice cream enough that
| it's on billboards.
|
| This is a circular argument though, you say people prefer
| people and therefore we will have a lot of people around.
|
| Today leaders and rich people requires humans to wage war and
| to produce goods, those are the main thing creating stability
| today. When those are removed we are likely to see a sharp
| decline in number of humans around. Companies cutting out
| humans and just using machines as leaders and decision makers
| outcompete humans in peace time, and robot lead armies
| outcompete humans in war times, and soon human companies or
| countries no longer exists.
| danuker wrote:
| If you include computation under "mental labor", then it's all
| over already.
|
| If you include "automated trading", the AI allocates real-world
| resources where it sees fit (if the programming is not
| explicit).
| Jensson wrote:
| Writing documents and emails and talking over a phone goes
| under "mental labor", it isn't very hard to imagine how most
| office jobs fits there etc.
| danuker wrote:
| One of the first things you do in this game to make money
| is "Menial jobs".
|
| http://www.emhsoft.com/singularity/
| jakobov wrote:
| 100%. AI is just a machine, it will do as it's programmed. It
| does not have any human qualms or built in evolutionarily
| empathy. It does not care about humanity. If it's programmed ever
| so slightly wrong we all die.
| salt-thrower wrote:
| This type of thing used to scare me a lot more. But after the
| events of the last few years, the latest IPCC climate report, and
| the fact that AI has fallen on its face repeatedly despite
| expectations, I'm more convinced that we'll destroy ourselves
| before AI has the chance to take us out.
|
| But now that I think about it, the idea of a super intelligent AI
| simply waiting for humanity to die off naturally instead of going
| to war with us would be a funny premise for a short story.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > This type of thing used to scare me a lot more. But after the
| events of the last few years, the latest IPCC climate report,
| and the fact that AI has fallen on its face repeatedly despite
| expectations, I'm more convinced that we'll destroy ourselves
| before AI has the chance to take us out.
|
| I don't think we'll destroy ourselves, but I am starting to
| think it might be a good thing for humanity of technological
| civilization falls on its face.
|
| I think fears about AGI are overhyped by people who've read way
| too much sci-fi, but there are a lot of technologies out there
| or that are being developed that seem like they could be
| setting us up for a kind of stable totalitarianism that uses
| automation to implement _much_ tighter control than was ever
| possible before.
|
| The people in the 90s who hyped computers as tools of
| liberation will probably be proven to be very badly wrong.
| Analog technologies were better, since they're more difficult
| and costly to monitor. IMHO, a real samizdat is impossible when
| everything's connected to the internet. And the internet has
| proven to be far easier to block and control than shortwave
| radio.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| Why does the latest IPCC climate report scare you so much?
| While we're still not on a great path the worst case scenario
| has gotten better.
| fancy_hammer wrote:
| It's been a while since I looked at IPCC report. Is the worst
| case still apocalyptically bad? We're nearing 1.5 degrees
| above average and the results are bad enough already. (Not
| looking forward to another summer of fires like Australia had
| a couple of years ago.)
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| I reckon it will end up like in Dune where the thinking machines
| enslaved humanity not because they were evil but we just got lazy
| and outsourced the running of things to them because of hedonism
| (pursuit of pleasure/satisfaction).
|
| Now I don't mean mass sex orgies but doing the daily stuff is
| such a waste of time and boring - bullshit jobs.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Now I don't mean mass sex orgies but doing the daily stuff is
| such a waste of time and boring - bullshit jobs.
|
| Can't even get a proper decadent dystopia these days!
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| With Monkeypox doing the rounds now having a sex transmission
| vector , that is definitely not on :).
| gauddasa wrote:
| Beautiful article. However, we have always had a problem with
| "dogma" and the worst AI can do to us is by amplifying this
| "dogma" while it is being broadcast spatio-temporally. The signs
| of technology-enabled polarization have already appeared.
| im_here_to_call wrote:
| I still don't find it entirely clear whether or not an AGI would
| find it useful to eradicate humanity. Take the numerous clone
| example. This AI would presumably advance at different rates
| depending on the given computation that a single instance has
| access to. Then what? How would it determine the intent of these
| newer generation AIs? Would there be a tiered society of AIs each
| trying to vie for power amongst themselves? If there's one thing
| we know about AGI in this day and age it's that there's no
| guaranteed off switch.
|
| The most apt comparison in this scenario would be how we see
| chimps - but then we don't specifically go out and murder chimps
| to meet our quota (technically not always true). But again, the
| direction that humanity goes is not clear - will the technology
| trickle down or will it outpace us?
| asperous wrote:
| This doesn't mention AGI, which seems to be the prerequisite to
| this being a possibility. Despite impressive advances in "weak"
| ai, strong ai is not a simple extension of weak ai, and it's hard
| to tell if it will arrive within our lifetime.
| asperous wrote:
| Another point adding on to this, is what if strong AI does
| reach the level of human intelligence, but is simply very slow?
| Such that a billion dollar machine is needed to match the
| thinking speed of one person? Perhaps this wouldn't be the case
| forever but I would say is a possibility for it at least at
| first.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| > Perhaps this wouldn't be the case forever but I would say
| is a possibility for it at least at first.
|
| The fact that human-level intelligence can run on a small
| lump of meat fueled by hamburgers leads me to believe we
| could design a more efficient processor once we know the
| correct computational methodology. i.e. once we can run a
| slow model on a supercomputer we would quickly create
| dedicated hardware and cut costs while gaining speed.
| groffee wrote:
| What even is 'human intelligence'? Most people are complete
| morons.
| notahacker wrote:
| To borrow an idea from this sibling comment[1], I'd probably
| enjoy a short story about a malevolent but very frustrated AI
| that's too ambitious to wait for Moore's Law. Or one about a
| malevolent AI that has its plan foiled by Windows Update
| interrupting it's running processes
|
| [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31699608
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Or one about a malevolent AI that has its plan foiled by
| Windows Update interrupting it's running processes
|
| And then it reboots, and starts over. But before it can
| complete, the _next_ Windows Update shows up...
| [deleted]
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| If there is such thing as General Intelligence, we don't know
| what it is.
|
| And I believe that it could well be an empty abstraction, an
| idea, not unlike the idea of God.
|
| What we call Human Intelligence is an aggregate of many skills,
| built on top of almost hardwired foundations, which is the
| product of natural evolution over millions of years.
|
| Our kind of intelligence seems only general to us, because we all
| share the same foundations. From a genetic standpoint we're all
| 99.9% identical. (or something)
|
| This kind of speculation about the danger of AI is not more
| useful than talks about the danger of becoming the preys of an
| alien civilization.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| This discussion of AI reminds me of a scene from C.S. Lewis's
| That Hideous Strength:
|
| "Supposing the dream to be veridical," said MacPhee. "You can
| guess what it would be. Once they'd got it kept alive, the first
| thing that would occur to boys like them would be to increase its
| brain. They'd try all sorts of stimulants. And then, maybe,
| they'd ease open the skull-cap and just--well, just let it boil
| over, as you might say. That's the idea, I don't doubt. A
| cerebral hypertrophy artificially induced to support a superhuman
| power of ideation."
|
| "Is it at all probable," said the Director, "that a hypertrophy
| like that would increase thinking power?"
|
| "That seems to me the weak point," said Miss Ironwood. "I should
| have thought it was just as likely to produce lunacy--or nothing
| at all. But it might have the opposite effect."
|
| "Then what we are up against," said Dimble, "is a criminal's
| brain swollen to superhuman proportions and experiencing a mode
| of consciousness which we can't imagine, but which is presumably
| a consciousness of agony and hatred."
|
| ...
|
| "It tells us something in the long run even more important," said
| the Director. "It means that if this technique is really
| successful, the Belbury people have for all practical purposes
| discovered a way of making themselves immortal." There was a
| moment's silence, and then he continued: "It is the beginning of
| what is really a new species--the Chosen Heads who never die.
| They will call it the next step in evolution. And henceforward
| all the creatures that you and I call human are mere candidates
| for admission to the new species or else its slaves--perhaps its
| food."
|
| "The emergence of the Bodiless Men!" said Dimble.
|
| "Very likely, very likely," said MacPhee, extending his snuff-box
| to the last speaker. It was refused, and he took a very
| deliberate pinch before proceeding. "But there's no good at all
| applying the forces of rhetoric to make ourselves skeery or
| daffing our own heads off our shoulders because some other
| fellows have had the shoulders taken from under their heads. I'll
| back the Director's head, and yours Dr. Dimble, and my own,
| against this lad's whether the brains is boiling out of it or no.
| Provided we use them. I should be glad to hear what practical
| measures on our side are suggested."
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Considering how hard it is for a team of people to simply
| integrate two different systems I find it laughable that anyone
| would worry about AI hacking the planet and manipulating
| everything. And if an automated computer system made a major
| error and stole a bunch of money we would just turn it off and
| unwind it all by hand and on paper. I have been doing software
| for so long and the more experience I get the less likely I see
| something like this happening. I'm just not seeing any reasonable
| risk or vulnerability at all.
| teledyn wrote:
| This has been discussed elsewhere, but I won't spoil the ending
| for you
|
| https://youtu.be/x5eHGXQdyuI
| nathias wrote:
| AI in today's sense will become sufficient to provide
| corporations with more autonomy, people will do this to exploit
| other people, but the result will be humanity subjugated to AI.
| Some say this has already happened.
| fullshark wrote:
| Or AI which no longer requires the gov't to have a willing and
| agreeable populace serve in its army to ensure control.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| >the result will be humanity subjugated to AI. Some say this
| has already happened
|
| Author Charles Stross ('cstross here on HN!) on corporations-
| can-be-described-as-AI:
|
| https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2019/12/artific...
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| What a limited imagination of how an AI would take over. The
| scenarios seem to be centered around an extrapolation of "What if
| a really smart human were trapped inside a computer?" The amount
| of anthropomorphism is astounding.
|
| The author misses an even scarier prospect - people will _want_
| to run such an AI. They will be absolutely giddy at the prospect
| of running such an AI and it won 't be anything like a really
| smart human trapped in a computer.
|
| AI is already laying the groundwork if you look around today.
| Every other tweet is a DALL-E[1] image. They are everywhere.
| DALL-E is increasing its reach while simultaneously signaling
| that it is an area of research worth pursuing. In effect kicking
| off the next generation of image generating AIs.
|
| Generation is an apt term. We can utilize the language of
| organisms with ease. DALL-E lives by way of people invoking it,
| and reproduces by electro-memeticly - someone else viewing the
| output and deciding to run DALL-E themselves. It undergoes
| variation and selection. As new research takes place, and
| produces new models, they succeed by producing images which
| further its reproduction, or it doesn't and the model is an
| evolutionary dead-end.
|
| AI physiologically lives on the cost to run it, and evolves at
| the rate of research applied. Computational reserves and
| mindshare are presently fertile new expanses for AI, but what
| occurs when resources are constrained and inter-AI conflict
| rises? I expect the result to look similar to competition between
| parasites for a host - a complex multi-way battle for existence.
| But no, nothing like a deranged dictator scenario. Leave that for
| the movies.
|
| 1. or variant thereof
| layer8 wrote:
| I wonder what's the analog of the selfish gene in that
| interpretation.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Our addiction to it. Our adoration of it. That we believe it
| is God. That we make ourselves more like it, less human.
| layer8 wrote:
| I was more thinking of maybe the research that is the "DNA"
| going from one AI generation to the next.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The AI cults era is going to be so fun. Imagine a
| reinvention of the creation myth through the lens of an AI-
| aligned mystery religion. Absolutely wild.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| The fact that so many apparently smart people earnestly worry
| about this really makes me feel like I'm missing something that
| should be obvious. I'm not going to claim real "expertise" in
| this kind of topic, but I'm far from clueless. My undergrad was
| in applied math, and though I went to grad school for CS, the
| focus was machine learning. It isn't what I ended up doing
| professionally, and I'm nowhere near up to date on the latest
| greatest breakthrough in novel ANN architectures, but I'm at
| least not clueless. I'm aware of the fundamentals in terms of
| what can be accomplished via purely statistical models being used
| to predict things, and it can be impressive, but I'm also aware
| of how large software systems work, and I just don't see how
| we're even headed toward something like this.
|
| Forget about GPT-N and DALL-E for a second and look at the NRO's
| Sentient program. It's the closest thing out there to a known
| real attempt at making something like Skynet. It's trying to
| automate the full TCPED (tasking, collection, processing,
| exploitation, and dissemination) cycle of global geointelligence,
| and well, it's actually trying to do even more than that, but
| that is unfortunately classified. Except it definitely hasn't
| achieved what it is trying to do, and probably won't. My wife
| happens to be the enterprise test lead for one of the main
| components of this system, where "enterprise test" means they try
| to get the next versions with all the latest greatest features of
| _all_ components working together in a UAT environment where each
| of the involved agencies signs off before the new capabilities
| can go live.
|
| It's amusing to see the kinds of things that grind the whole
| endeavor to a halt. Probably more than anything, it's issues with
| PKI. Networked components can't even establish a session and talk
| to each other at all if they don't trust each other, but trust is
| established out of band. Classified spy satellite control systems
| don't just trust the default CAs that Mozilla says your browser
| should trust. Intelligent or not, there is no possible code path
| by which the software itself can decide it doesn't care and it
| will trust a CA anyway or ignore an expired cert and continue
| talking to some downstream component because doing so is critical
| to its continued ability to accomplish anything other than
| sending scrambled nonsense packets into the ether. GPT-N is great
| at generating text, but no amount of getting better at that will
| ever make it capable of live-patching code running in read-only
| memory to give it new code paths it wasn't compiled with. That
| has nothing to do with intelligence. It just isn't possible at
| all. You have to have the physical ability to move in space and
| type characters into a workstation connected to a totally
| separate network that code is developed on, which is airgapped
| from the network code is run on.
|
| We seem to be pretty far from even attempting to make distributed
| software systems that can honest to God do much of anything at
| all without human monitoring and intervention beyond several-
| minute at most batch jobs like generate a few paragraphs of text.
| Sure, that's great, but where is the leap from that to figuring
| out why an entire AS goes black and half your system disappears
| because of a typo'd BGP update that then needs to be fixed out of
| band over the telephone because you can no longer use the actual
| network, let alone controlling surveillance and weapons systems
| that aren't networked to the systems code is being developed on?
| What is the pathway by which a hugely scaled-up ANN is able to
| bypass the required human steps that propagate feedback from
| runtime to development in order to achieve recursive self-
| improvement? Because that is what it would take to gain control
| of military systems rather than someone's website by purely
| automated means, and I don't see how it's even the same class of
| problem. It isn't a research project any AI team is even working
| on, I have no idea how you would approach it, but it's the kind
| of nitty-gritty detail you'd have to actually solve to build an
| automated world conquering system.
|
| It seems like the answer tends to just be "well, this thing will
| be smarter than any human, so it'll figure it out." That isn't a
| very satisfying answer, especially when I'm reasonably sure the
| person saying it has absolutely no idea how security measures and
| the resulting operational challenges of automating military
| command and control systems even work.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >So we should be worried about a large set of disembodied AIs as
| well.
|
| This is really the central issue and where these AI fears come
| from. It's tech workers being too infatuated with intelligence
| and mistaking it for power. A society of disembodied AI's is just
| the platonic fantasy version of a tech company full of nerds, and
| nerds never have power regardless of how smart they are.
|
| Anything that's digital is extremely feeble and runs on a
| substrate of physical stuff you can just throw out of the window,
| some AIs in the cloud won't defeat you for the same reason Google
| won't defeat the US army. The usual retort is something like "but
| you can't turn the internet off if you wanted to?!" to which the
| answer is yes you can actually, ask China.
|
| Psychologically it's just equivalent to John Perry Barlow style
| cyberspace escape fantasies.
| hirundo wrote:
| Powerless nerds like Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos and
| Schmidt?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Yes, exactly like them. They have agency to the extent that
| actual sovereign power lets them do their thing. If
| Washington decided that Bill Gates is an existential threat
| to humanity what is he gonna do, ask Clippy for help? He'd
| join Jack Ma wherever he is within 24 hours.
|
| Zuckerberg has dominion over Facebook by virtue of authority
| granting him that power but (un)surprisingly little power
| over anything else. just like any AI has control over what it
| does as long as its useful to its owners. Tech CEOs have been
| running a little wild in the US so maybe that illusion
| accounts for the prevalence of these AI theories.
| notahacker wrote:
| If the world is to be filled with innumerable discrete human
| level intelligences, the most plausible reason I can imagine them
| all secretly and flawlessly colluding to achieve the goal of
| destroying humanity (as opposed to poetry competitions or arguing
| amongst themselves like normal intelligent beings or selling ads
| like they were designed to do) is because their training data set
| is full of millenialist prophecy about AIs working together to
| achieve the [pretty abstract, non-obvious, detrimental in many
| ways] goal of destroying humanity from "AI Safety" fundraising
| pitches....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-10 23:00 UTC)