tpm

I'm yet to see evidence they are weighing global warming they way it IMO should be weighted relatively to eg AI risk. I get it, it's not cool.

Compare the number of posts of some EA-adjacent public people talking about AI and talking about this. Or what measure should we choose?

It's not outside their control. The US can stop the conflict by giving Iran what they want, but it would admit defeat and lose face, so it will continue.

> things that people actually enjoy

No one will care if you build 1000th replica of a nice building. It's just not interesting to anyone and actually becomes boring very fast. People may live in it but no one will come from afar to visit it because of its beauty. It will become another one in a row of the same.

If you build a striking, exceptional building, it can become a big success (like Gehry's in Bilbao which is a success story for the whole city), so people who commission buildings sometimes select for that.

And also there is a sizable group of people who actually enjoy interesting buildings, like people who enjoy haute couture or haute cuisine etc., so it's not like there is no market for that.

that one looks too Calatrava-ish (specifically Oceanografic), I'd prefer the Dongdaemun Design Plaza if we are talking Zaha Hadid - especially once you see it in person.

> allowing Russia's army to become stronger

Currently russian war is eating close to 50% of their federal budget. That's WW2 levels of militarism for nearly zero gain (current battlefield status, not 2022-2025) and huge manpower and infrastructure losses.

> Germany is purposefully causing a war between the EU and Russia because

No, Germany does what it does because it has no strong or even good leaders and failed to adapt to current circumstances. There is no purpose.

> young Germans (who will be doing all the dying)

They won't.

Iran did turn off the internet for a few months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Internet_blackout_in_Iran

I am not advocating for neither, just saying many things seem unworkable until they become unavoidable.

> incredibly hard time countering it

Turn off the internet (like Iran).

> We can't even prevent human actors from massively fucking up or societies, let alone ASI.

We can (see China); we chose not to.

Because when "AI" starts killing people, at some point it becomes a war and the usual supply channels stop working. Everybody knows you have to attack enemy logistics.

> But if it did need all of those things, then it probably serves as a good example of what it would NOT do.

Or even that there will be no AI apocalypse. Because, again, the gaps in any scenario are unplausibly huge.

In theory I like Skechers; in practice they self-destruct after a few months on my legs. Luckily nowadays there is a lot of differents slip-on shoes I can buy - I've got 2 pairs of Crocs slip-on shoes which are better in every way and also Merrel slip-ons for the cold and wet days which are great too.

Thank you for the effort. I will continue to sleep soundly for now (well not really as we have more pressing issues like a few wars and a climate change).

Every such scenario contains a few gaps so I'm just going to ask without really hoping for an answer.

> We already have technology to make robotic systems (mini drone swarms) that can kill humans...

To make them from what. Do you expect, during the next 6 or so years, to some "AI" gaining complete automated secure command of (all of) an oil field, oil refinery, a copper mine, an aluminum mine and smelter with associated energy sources, a rare earth mine and refinery, a helium source, a chip factory, a lithium mine, a battery factory etc etc etc etc. while pursuing complete annihilation of all mankind?

> That might be too imprecise for the HN set but it's realistic for laypeople.

Some 'laypeople' will be scared for a while and then return to more pressing issues and exactly nothing good will come out of that. If there really are some issues worth discussing the first step the AI doom crowd should do is to stop the PR offensive and concentrate on producing verifiable claims and actionable small steps. Otherwise their effort will fail this time and when/if a next time comes, they will have a lot less PR capital to burn.

Move one tab backwards. So in form fields move one field back, in text editor indent one tab less etc.

> Seven years later I have relatives who send me every day some long-winded AI-generated bullshit.

So not releasing the weights at that time didn't make the world safer, but did help to transform OpenAI into a commercial entity. Why should we trust them now?

This looks like halfway through your comment you realised it is indeed a nefarious plot by the CEOs, reusing existing arguments to further their own goals.

> The AI risk arguments ... are 20-30 years old

Yeah so climate change is known to cause many excess deaths already now and we know pretty precisely what we have to do for decades, and we only do some bare minimum if anything at all. But now there is a huge PR offensive to do something about a 'risk' that until now caused zero deaths, is not certain to exist at all and is stoked not by concerned outsiders but by people certain to profit handsomely from heavy regulation of their industry. I'd say it's not opponents who need better arguments.

Agree but current models could get there from first principles, so removing some data from training set might not be enough.

I think software from major companies is in worse shape than in 2021. But that's on purpose, the enshittification continues. Otherwise I agree with you.

Threadripper (4 or 8 memory channels)

> Most modern cars are.

Also no, unless you can cite some relevant sources for this claim (or have your own definition for a 'modern car').

> And the debate is whether AI can be conscious

This is not the debate whether AI can be conscious, that's next door (probably). This is the debate why should we care about some "LLM welfare".

> A strong AI hooked up to everything online?

would have to be created by humans

> most cars are remote control by default

no

> have you read about the hugginface attack?

I did and think OpenAI should be prosecuted, but the direction things are going anything will be done to absolve the corporations and CEO of any responsibility for their criminal actions. Hence the misdirection to "conscious AIs", so agency can be attributed to that thing.

> but evidence of what they do and this matters

yeah so (non-self-driving) cars kill people. Are we going to have a discussion about some hypotethical car consciousness irrelevant to the actual issues or are we going to have a discussion about people driving the cars?

If biking around 5000 km yearly is serious enough then I'm one - using only my phone to track. Since I will be taking my phone with me anyway, I don't need another device.

Animals obviously kill people. Even nonconscious things like the climate kill people.

> if they soon would possess the capability to hack into the nuclear arsenal and kill humanity

If there is a way "to hack into the nuclear arsenal" then that's the interesting thing. Because it's not a capability of the llm; anyone can abuse that.

> Or make all autonomous cars crash.

That is again a question of car security, not a capability of some mysterious thing.

At this point it's all people projecting their thoughts and emotions (mostly emotions) onto technology. Sure, this can be investigated by social sciences, which have been mostly cut.

it's not a biological system though, so nothing like that matters?

"a modelled thing exhibits features we've trained into it" sounds a lot less exciting.

> Keep in mind that animals were also not necessarily considered conscious.

and even conscious animals are killed in factories by millions so why should anyone care about a llm?

> scientifically correct stance

that's the interesting point to me: why even bring science into this? A llm can now mimic nearly anything you want it to, so of course it can mimic "a (for some) interesting conscious thing" if they want/train it to, but why would anyone find that scientifically interesting?

in my experience it can be effective for some people but mostly at much higher dosage than usually recommended.

I'm using Firefox mobile for many years exclusively (since chrome forced some stupid feature on me, I think it was tab groups which I hated and couldn't turn off. And of course no ubo). Could be a bit faster probably? Otherwise don't see any issues.

I'm a dev and use windows (sadly have to), android and linux, and would never use edge, because why? when it randomly opens because of a wrong file association or whatnot, I only see a bucket of ms nags and dark patterns. It's disgusting.

Firefox allows me to share stuff across devices, block anything I want to and does not get in my way.

> How could it not be.

Plenty of ways. That's what we have science for. For one, why choose 19th century projects when we did millenia of terraforming, mostly by doing away with forrests and wetlands, but also planting artifical forrests over dry sand areas (see the Cap Ferret fire) etc. etc.

but also, the heatwaves of this summer mostly consist of hot air from Sahara being driven to Europe and staying there.

> that the EU is doing to drive tens of millions of more people into Europe

what

> The interior of my new build luxury apartment in the financial district is routinely over 30°C

That's not a well built building though. Our flat in warmer location in Europe does not get over 27C unless it's over 33C outside, and that withou the AC active.

there were some exceptions though, like in Greece, where banks charged for every sepa transaction. not sure if that's still the case.

"I don't accept" is not an answer though. When the EU can create CBAM, so can (and should) the US and anyone else. That way we don't have to talk about moral responsibility and can progress to adequate international carbon pricing.