Hacker News Reader

Comment by mitthrowaway2 | Hacker News Reader

I see. No, my safety worry is that my 3-year-old daughter won't see her 23rd birthday because the AI that gets put in charge of running big conglomerates decides that killing off the human race with a coordinated release of a million tonnes of nerve gas is a sensible way to boost share prices the following quarter.

I'd be happy if we all create the AI more slowly.

That said, are you sure you're talking about the same people the GGP was talking about? Because the whole thread reads as a non-sequitur then.

View on HN

I am sure I am talking about the same people/groups.

The rest of us seem to be talking about the people like me who view the AI safety issue as "an unsafe AI will kill all humans". And the main article is about a guy who quit AI because it wasn't being careful enough, not because it wasn't moving fast enough to accelerate AI. So why would anyone be bringing up the "we must accelerate faster" people as the safety people in such a context, while trying to discredit them as a sex cult? I struggle to understand.

The linked articles in the thread are about AI sagety people I described. The guy who quit due to OpenAI not being careful enough is one of the people I talk about too.

The worry is not harm to people right now, like the kid worries you talk about. The worry is AI god emerging too soon before they can control it. And then it should be full speed on.

> So why would anyone be bringing up the "we must accelerate faster" people as the safety people in such a context, while trying to discredit them as a sex cult?

Because they are the same people. They talk like cult and act like cult. And the sex part is true too, so. Thry use words that sound good like safety, but their idea of safety is much different. They talk about alignement, but it is not what random person imagines under that term. Even their idea of future of humanity is very very specific and unusual.

That is why. And the sex part is just part of it all. And does matter because inner workings of wanna be industry guards matter.

Then we miscommunicated, so let me be clearer. I'm worried about ~20 years from now (plus or minus), when AI decides to kill us all because it's misaligned and is capable of doing so because it's super intelligent. And then we all suddenly die without any idea what happened. I don't want that to happen to me or my daughter and I would prefer all AI capabilities development stops until alignment research catches up and figures out how to robustly prevent AI from ever trying to achieve such outcomes. If that means pausing AI capabilities development forever, I'm fine with that. If that means Anthropic and Nvidia lose all their value in a stock market collapse, I'm fine with that. I just don't want us to all die, I want the world to keep existing for humans.

I believe that other harms from AI, like criminals abusing them, or unemployment, or copyright infringement, or deepfake disinformation, are valid real harms that it's important to be concerned about, and I support efforts to deal with those, and I agree that they're already happening today, but my main concern is AI killing everybody.

My read is this puts me in the same boat as the authors of If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, and yet, I don't get invitations to Berkeley sex parties. Am I doing something wrong? At any rate, please don't discredit my opinions about AI based on the sexual preferences of random people who happen to share those opinions about AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com