▲ -11 ▼ In a 38-page essay, Dario Amodei warns of civilization-level damage from superintelligent AI, questioning whether humanity has the maturity to handle such power (www.axios.com) submitted 9 months ago by Innerworld@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 9 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (3 children) It's perfectly valid to discuss the dangers of AGI whether LLMs are the path there or not. I've been concerned about AGI and ASI for far longer than I've even known about LLMs, and people were worried about exactly the same stuff back then as they are now. This is precisely the kind of threat you should try to find a solution for before we actually reach AGI - because once we do, it's way, way too late. Also: There is factually 0 chance we'll reach AGI with the current brand of technology. You couldn't possibly know that with absolute certainty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 9 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child) Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there. For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite. My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn't possibly know with absolute certainty. I'd have zero issue with the claim if you'd included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. You made an absolute statement instead. That I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (3 children) It's perfectly valid to discuss the dangers of AGI whether LLMs are the path there or not. I've been concerned about AGI and ASI for far longer than I've even known about LLMs, and people were worried about exactly the same stuff back then as they are now. This is precisely the kind of threat you should try to find a solution for before we actually reach AGI - because once we do, it's way, way too late. Also: There is factually 0 chance we'll reach AGI with the current brand of technology. You couldn't possibly know that with absolute certainty. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 9 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child) Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there. For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite. My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn't possibly know with absolute certainty. I'd have zero issue with the claim if you'd included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. You made an absolute statement instead. That I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 3 points 9 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child) Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there. For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite. My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn't possibly know with absolute certainty. I'd have zero issue with the claim if you'd included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. You made an absolute statement instead. That I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child) Nobody knows what it actually takes to reach AGI, so nobody knows whether a certain system has enough compute and context size to get there. For all we know, it could turn out way simpler than anyone thought - or the exact opposite. My point still stands: you (or Cameron) couldn't possibly know with absolute certainty. I'd have zero issue with the claim if you'd included even a shred of humility and acknowledged you might be wrong. You made an absolute statement instead. That I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)