[HN Gopher] AI Everywhere, All at Once
___________________________________________________________________
AI Everywhere, All at Once
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 37 points
Date : 2023-05-31 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| 8jef wrote:
| Cautious fear cultivation messages like these means nothing,
| nothing at all, just fluff, just some irrational blind bits, just
| the last conservationist go-to fad.
|
| Fear has only one constructive purpose: be conquered. Will AI
| potentially transform things? Probably. Will people suffer in the
| process? Most probably. Should we stop the AI process? We can't.
| We couldn't stop industrialization, or cars, or capitalism, or
| electricity, or pollution, or climate changes, so we won't stop
| AI.
|
| What will happen? As usual, we will go all the way through the
| process, we'll maybe loose ourselves in AI, or we'll find a way
| to conquer, adapt and win, as we usually do. Or we won't. But no
| matter how loud fearful voices are, in control and in the know
| people never really listen, quite the opposite. In the meantime
| you can invest in your fears and become a prepper, an AI prepper
| that is (whatever that will be), an entirely new business
| opportunity!
| CyrsBel wrote:
| I am skeptical that this is about regulating AI for safety rather
| than regulating AI to try to be the gatekeepers of the value AI
| brings to people who love drinking from the chalice of knowledge.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| > Trustworthiness, we agreed, is probably the most pressing near-
| term concern. Addressing the provenance of information and its
| traceability is key. Otherwise people may be swamped by so much
| bad information that the fragile consensus among humans about
| what is and isn't real totally breaks down.
|
| Wow, trustworthiness just isn't my concern when I use chatGPT. I
| feel like we shouldn't "trust" it -- it is better as a source of
| inspiration and perspective than a source of "truth."
| zzzeek wrote:
| it's so frustrating how there are really two conversations going
| on about this.
|
| one is, "AI will soon enough be AGI and then the extinction of
| humanity is at stake"
|
| the other is sort of paraphrased in this article: "These models
| are being unleashed into the wild by corporations who offer no
| transparency as to their corpus, their architecture, their
| guardrails, or the policies for handling data from users. "
|
| one refers to harm that would be caused by some hypothetical
| intelligence that so far only exists in science fiction, the
| other refers to harm being committed right now by humans who own
| companies.
|
| The various "letters" being signed seem to be firmly in the "AGI
| human extinction" category and make no effort to suggest that
| perhaps the training sets being used for LLM should be *opened up
| right now and limited to those sources that provide consent
| only*, that is, stop stealing art, music, writing, source code,
| photographs, literature, and sticking it in your for-profit
| product. Skynet is not doing that, Sam Altman is.
| yyyk wrote:
| Both camps have really weird blind spots that lead them to make
| rather counterproductive suggestions. One camp thinks about
| 'alignment' (which has serious risks if pursued naively). In
| the other camp it's the obsession with 'transparency' - which
| has its own risks.
|
| Forget about Skynet. What happens when psycho militia takes the
| transparent training sets and transparent architecture and uses
| them to train its own AI for, say, creating some very
| innovative chemical weapons? Many 'AI risk' things that the
| doomers think about 'work' almost as well if we merely have a
| non-AGI AI directed by known existing crazies. Maybe we should
| think about how much we really want to expose to the public.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| It's understandable: opening the training sets would increase
| the risk of the hypothetical happening, so it's difficult to
| expect the first camp to advocate doing it.
|
| As for "stealing", it's controversial if "stealing" is even
| happening, given the plurality of laws and opinions, so it's an
| even thornier subject to pick up if you have other things to
| worry about.
|
| Let those in either camp fight for what they consider
| important.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I wish there was no fight, just rational discussion lacking
| most of emotions. We humans have enough fighting these days
| already, in literal and every other sense.
|
| This topic needs some quality discussion taking some time, so
| ideas permeate general public and folks have time to form an
| opinion. Not just be shock-pushed into an opinion by sudden
| dramatic arrival of something completely unknown and its
| sudden ubiquity, which can go very easily wrong even without
| nefarious parties taking advantage of situation, like they
| always do.
| majormajor wrote:
| One wonders if some of the parties are using the sci-fi risk as
| a distraction from the more immediate one.
|
| Personally, I think the creation of things like ChatGPT in a
| way poisons the well for future models to be created in the
| same way able to be up to date with future trends. I think
| within a decade much original, quality stuff will be more
| explicitly protected from free scraping and training. And at
| the same time, freely available stuff will become flooded with
| LLM-generated crap, so any "vaccuum up everything free" models
| of tomorrow will be trained more on today's model's output than
| on human output.
|
| So whatever signifiers evolve to represent "this is real human-
| created stuff, not just AI crap" in conversations or art will
| be harder to adopt and copy without a lot of effort in your
| prompting and all.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-31 23:02 UTC)