top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 1 month ago

The "AI companies" themselves proudly claim their 'child' is "too dangerous" when they tell it to play save but walks right out of the door they "did not" left wide open with all the credentials they told it not to use hacking all kinds of 'unsuspected' systems.

*why are they heavily investing in solving math problems? The story that OpenAI wants you to hear is, this AI did this incredible thing, and it’s super intelligent. *

Sure. And not that the total cost exceeded about a hundred times the price money. And that it possibly have scanned the results of another researcher who asked AI for advise, in the hope it will not cause too much controversy.

Why are we spending so much time talking about this idea of AI that people have been talking about since the ’40s and ’50s?

Because Sci-Fi writers from that period, like Asimov and Orwell for instance, understood the dangers of autonomous rule observing emotionless servants. We actually had a World War teaching us that too, leading to the invention of the UN and UDHR for example... but somehow and for some reason we still manage to steer towards 'outsourced' control anyway (while under the impression it's a mere assistant for funny stuff).

Timnit Gebru argues that AI companies are stoking fears of extinction to avoid discussing actual harms, like autonomous weapons.

It's the same thing. Just desensitizing the public by normalizing the talking points.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    If the leaders of AI development are saying AI will make humans extinct in the next ten years, the immediate and universal response should be to restrict AI to heavily regulated and restricted research only. With cross monitoring by multiple governments and Guantanamo Bay level repercussions.

    Unless of course its just bullshit.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    "All the Doom Talk is meant to distract us"...

    ...from how AI is going to kill us all? I feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago*

    I think they mean all the vague articles that the main news outlets put out like the "ai breaking containment" when really they just dis the equivalent of letting a unmonitored Hermes agent in a loose enviorment do whatever it wanted then pretended to be surprised.

    Or saying its just going to "kill us all" with no real good explanation on how, but merely to serve as a hype piece.

    None of these articles ever bring up valid criticisms or point at all the issues from real people. Because that would hurt the already very fragile ai economy.

    There's plenty of valid concerns and you should be repeating them everytime ai is mentioned, otherwise its hard to get people on the same page that can lead to educated laws and regulations against Ai. The panopticon is real and won't go away, its existed sense we had the patriot act. Ai stealing all information on the internet and attempting to lock the door behind them is a real concern. Theres a lot of real issues, and they're essentially just recycling the plot of the terminator because they're old and stupid, as if we can't just unplug the data centers if it "lost contamination and went rouge"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    How to deal with autonomous weapons https://youtu.be/_LXen-07Qds

  • source
  • 13 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 16 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I've low key been wondering what happened to her since leaving Google - thanks for posting this!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No thanks to whoever mentioned “low key” being used as a filler word the other day, as now I’ll always notice it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    when isn't it? everything will be the new distraction from everything else.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Haha, classic longtermism

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    All are risks.

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Or these models are dangerous since even in the cutting edge models which they don't share with the public they can't control them

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I like all these people who don't work on them so sure they know how it works

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    A soft-fluff factory is dangerous if there aren't safeguards. It's not that ai or llms are dangerous as a concept. It's that they are being given authorities and access that they shouldn't as there are inadequate safeguards built in and there are inadequate punishments for the neglectful development. Make the companies and users liable for the errors and they will work hard in that rather than chasing investment and PR with all their effort.

    Its often the case with new technology that the law doesn't match how they are used. However, as technology progresses, thinks are scaled and rolled out at a much more rapid pace. Hence the term hyperscalers. The law needs to catch up. Instead the law seems to give concessions. Partly due to regulatory capture, partly due to economic reasons, partly due to lack of understanding, partly due to corruption.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/technology@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago