Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarmWash | Hacker News Reader

The universe is not so generous as to make clearly differentiable "good" and "bad" things, more often than not they are two sides of the same coin. We don't want the AI to know how to kill people, but we do want it to be in expert in how not to kill people, which is the same thing as being in expert in how to kill people. In our reality this symmetry pops up everywhere.

View on HN

Or, llms are completely unreliable to be consulted on any matter of life or death in either direction. And llms should not be used in the reckless way they are currently being used. Responsibility for reckless use should fall on both the company that makes the function available and the user for improper monitoring. If proper monitoring is not possible using the tools provided by the company then the responsibility should fall on the company. And if the user and the company providing the model are the same, then the responsibility is clearly with the company.

>The universe is not so generous as to make clearly differentiable "good" and "bad" things, more often than not they are two sides of the same coin

Let's throw the AI "good" things away too then. We can do without them. It's amazing how a tech that didn't exist commercially at all 4 years ago it's considered "indispensable" even if it's going to destroy society and/or humanity.

The cat's out of the bag, there is no going back.

Everything can be reverted and/or stopped.

Some by the choice of people. Others by disasters and changes.

And all inevitably - at worst, through the heat death of the universe.

Not everything can be undone. Can you revert language? Maybe? But you can't take away the will to communicate which drives the creation of language.

How do you do that without violence? That's like banning math. Unless you ban acquisition of compute?

>How do you do that without violence?

How do you abolish slavery without violence?

Through open conversations, demonstrations, promote education and awareness to the relevant stakeholders.

Not all countries abolished slavery in the same way as the States. Violence is not always the answer.

Those countries, like the UK, didn't have much slave ownership to begin with. They just had slave trade, so much fewer stakeholders to complain about abolishing it, and even those had a more profitable replacement: colonialism.

At least in the states it was not without. But in the case of AI the side that didn't want AI would presumably not be using it in war if it did come to violence. That seems like it would put that side at a disadvantage.

Fact is some things cannot be reversed. It's not about whether it can be or should be but if people want it to be reversed. Not too different from Climate change, Gun control and other (for me) black/white issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com