537 karma · joined May 4, 2021
Reading this sentence made my arms tingle with anxiety.
I hear this argument a lot and always wonder if the causal direction is flipped: people use housing as an investment because it’s scarce, not that it’s scarce because it’s used as an investment. If there weren’t so many restrictions on building, the supply would grow to meet the demand and parking your money in property wouldn’t be such a hot idea.
I find this sentence kind of funny. If you thought your opinions were bad wouldn’t you change them?
Think of a person with no attachment to his life. He’s not suffering in the way suicidal people are, he’s just indifferent about whether or not he keeps living. But he has a child who he is committed to giving the best life possible. He will act in a way as though he wants to preserve his life. He doesn’t really, but in order to accomplish the goal of giving his child a good life he needs to stay alive.
Basically, any sufficiently advanced agent will have “prevent anyone from switching me off” as an instrumental goal. And any sufficiently advanced intelligence will come up with ways of achieving its goals that lesser intelligences can’t predict. Taking steps to prevent itself from being turned off could be its first order of business, not necessarily only as the human is about to hit the off switch.
While we can’t predict what a greater intelligence would come up with, the obvious thing is social engineering. Remember that one of the factors that lead to the Jan 6th attack on the capital was that a random text generating agent named “Q” (we know it was a human because it was before generative AI was any good) convinced thousands of people that Democrats are running a child sex cult. I doubt whoever was behind it expected it to be that successful, but a greater intelligence possibly could have predicted the outcome, and made it even more successful. We don’t know the extent to which we can be manipulated because it’s only ever been human intelligences doing the manipulating.
Am I the only one who finds these kinds of explanations unconvincing? I don't think anyone knows precisely what was going through Sutskever's mind on Friday, but whenever the best explanation people have for an event is that an obviously very smart person suddenly became very stupid, it gives me the feeling that we don't have all the information.
This is a demonstrably false claim that gets repeated over and over. 2 out of 3 Turing Award recipients for work in AI are people who talk about AI safety, and even existential risk. There are many more. It may actually be BS but it’s simply false to say that it’s based on technical ignorance. The question I have is why is this claim made over and over when it is so easily seen to be untrue?
Seriously though, we’re just getting started studying it, how can we know whether or not this stuff works? There’s a lot of positive anecdotal evidence. We’re not talking about marijuana, and no one ever expected it to solve every medical problem. That particular substance has done a lot of good with people experiencing discomfort, like cancer patients and the elderly, including members of my family.
- why cultivate friendships, have experiences like travel, build hobbies and skills that will give you joy all through your life?
For many people, the time and financial cost of children means delaying or sacrificing all those.
Can someone comment on this from the linked tweet? I haven’t been a js dev in a long time. Is functional style dead?
Can you also ELI5 why this seemed like such a hard problem to solve up until now? Was it something hiding in plain site?