Accept 'bad things' in return for benefits of AI, says Sam Altman(theguardian.com) |
Accept 'bad things' in return for benefits of AI, says Sam Altman(theguardian.com) |
Until that happens, no. Sam Altman is here telling us to accept the cruelty of his actions and his company so that he can be more wealthy.
No. Which election?
More money equals more power.
I'm no communist, but by all measures extreme disparity has nothing but bad consequences for any society.
That thing has been rising for decades - why should Sam Altman now become the culprit and scapegoat?
That of surveillance and the use of pattern matching is a legislative matter (not e.g. a matter of regulating RnD, which I understand as more relevant to this submission).
Similarly, there is a big difference between the police keeping a physical record book of mugshots, the police employing experts to maintain a database, and AI allowing nearly anyone to perform in depth surveilance.
E: typos
It is certainly pitched as if it is a claim we should be accepting of individual instances. Which is not the same as accepting that they occur.
There's a big difference between acknowledging that something cannot be universally beneficial and claiming that the bad aspects are inconsequential.
“Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.”
Every invention has positives and negatives. But no inventor or factory is at liberty to force the negatives upon society without regulation, or in Sam's case without being subject to the laws on theft and hacking.
He may as well come out and say "the ends justify the means" and the ends of course benefit Sam, and those subject to injustice, or negative externalities, should be happy that they can pay Sam for a subscription.
Or perhaps "Look, yes I stole, and yes I hacked, but now I've got this amazing tool you can use for free, and when you use it, and give me money for the full version, it will eventually replace you in the workplace and it will reduce you and your kids intellect after you outsource your thinking to it, and become dependent on it, which will be fine because you can just use the tool even more to make up for that."
Of course with a president who believes him to be above the law and American institutions, is it any wonder the people at the top of American society also believe it to be true? Not to mention their cheerleaders in the populous.
Do you mean:
> “I wouldn’t take a trade of saying we will make sure there’s no major hacks, there’s no misuse of this technology, there’s zero scams or all the other bad things that will happen because I think that people will do tremendously – orders of magnitude – more good stuff than bad stuff.”
If we assume that they are right: AI is inevitable and certain significant negatives cannot be avoided, then the obvious solution is for society to put together a social safety net for those who are effected. Altman could easily decide to campaign for and donate to a party which made serious strides towards establishing such a safety net.
The fact that they ignore the obvious solution suggests to me that they aren't quite being honest about their motives.
Mech engineers always overbuild things with safety factors in the 2x and 10x levels.
Why not just remove the neural/earth wires from all buildings and sockets? That'll do a whole lot of good by saving a bunch of copper, that's a tight resource I hear.
Also, screw air/sea regulation as well. We'll all just stand in the cabins, that'll increase Ryan air's failing profitability. Charge me for bringing my shoes on board too, I'm too rich anyway, skim any change off of my pocket please.
This slope is very very slippery.
What’s the mechanism by which this happens? I feel like people making these predictions live on a different planet.
You know you're starting to be personally affected by the decline of civilization when your brain can conjure up the notion of fire being "invented".
"we need the government to halt model training for us (and potential competitors who are currently behind us) due to hypothetical sci-fi future bad things"
on the one hand, and then
"we should not face consequences for that time we helped a teenager plan a mass shooting"
on the other so effortlessly, so instantaneously. And virtually the entire media helps them do it!
And society will pass laws. Europe has already begun doing so, and the US will once this goddamn corrupt administration is gone. People are already protesting against AI, especially against datacenters and surveillance like Flock. It's only a matter of time until individual actors end up in the focus of protests.
There's now just three possible futures:
- the fire is extinguished, aka the AI actors go bust. Nothing bad happens. Well, a bunch of rich people will be less rich, but society as a whole will be somewhat all right.
- the relief valve (society passing laws) is activated, pressure escapes.
- there is no pressure relief. Eventually, the pressure cooker bursts, aka revolution.
Hear me out, I know common sense says theft is bad, but just think about the hungry children I could feed if the world just agreed to let me take whatever I wanted.
...except AI won't even feed hungry children, it will only make the rich richer and flood the internet with slop.
I have a lot of interest in seeing how the common person response in this scenario.
Increased acceptance of political violence begets more political violence which in turn seems to increase its acceptance, see e.g. the killing of the healthcare CEO and subsequent arrest of the killer which significantly increased "democrats" support for political violence [1] so be careful what you ask for.
[1 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq...
Edit: I mean that we should continue to shun antisocial behavior even when it involves LLMs, not that we should blame the technology. The technology isn't an excuse, no technology should ever be an excuse -- that's what I mean by not "accepting" bad things. I don't mean that LLMs are not "worth it" thanks to the abuse, just that we should continue to treat abuse as such rather than giving anybody a free pass.
To me, "accept" means to socially tolerate it. No. Bad. It's not socially tolerable. It is still wrong to use LLMs for evil. I don't think that means LLMs are a fundamentally evil technology, but that does NOT mean anyone should get a free pass to use them FOR evil.
Which, as I have said:
-- is a field that has been developed for many decades - automated processing is classical AI. Why should it be now attributed to Sam Altman, whose company mainly does LLMs. If Sam Altman shouts "little risks much reaps", I would not think as surveillance as the first relevant rebuttal.
-- if the peoples do not want surveillance (what awakened them, a large number of places that were supposed to be civilized are cashless societies now), that would be a political matter, from which consequential legislation should be the goal.
We know we are in trouble.
Surprised that people are still quoting a decade old rumor.
Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, Elon Musk, David Sacks, etc. All the rest of you proles can fuck off. Stay in your lane.
When they speak of "existential consequences", it is not as members of humanity. It is a projection of their control over humanity. Personal risk for them is just being made into a regular human (no longer being ultrawealthy). They can't even contemplate physical risk. Case in point, this exact same class of people are buying up private islands and literally purchasing the blood of poorer people.
They would never accept your wager. It's the kind of thing Elon Musk would say "sounds interesting" to on Joe Rogan ten years ago, and then the only consequence after that would be his fanboys reminding everyone how cool it was that he said that.
I suppose monitoring is a good in the eyes of those who influence society.
I also believe the technology itself deserves to be improved so that it can be used for good. That doesn't mean I want more evil or to be more accepting towards evil. Evil should still be shunned.
This is a new type of technology, there is no real sense of its limits or capabilities. Regulating it appropriately or even just understanding best practices for using it is still way out by many years.
And also every country is working on it so it will get built and used for economic and military purposes, by someone.
This is just the nature of it. And yes there’s nothing at all that stops the US from doing something self destructive in terms of over regulation. I suspect this will happen eventually but Chinese models are really good.
Frank Rosenblatt, the Perceptron: 1957, planned for military purposes. Perfected image recognition came 15 years ago. I cannot understand why some people are talking about "new technologies" - all I may see is that the Military may inquire and solicit, given the hype, "Can you prepare something new for us". Otherwise, I cannot see the "novelty" about AI employment in the military now.
(I see specific areas of boost of NNs in the military - but nothing for the mainstream.)
More specifically the jump between GPT 2.0 and GPT 3.0 with its in context learning was a step change in functionality compared to anything else that had been done with NNs, let alone MLPs.
Ideally, yes, but what is to be done when we're in the situation where people get to actively harm others, but are immune from consequences just because they're wealthy, powerful, and/or executives of corporations?
Systemic failure triggers the parasystemic shortcuts. Lack of justice and fairness has grave consequences - they must be curbed with justice and fairness (and their roots) exactly.
Is it possible that you might be in a bit of a bubble? At least in the community that I live in there is already virtually no public trust in our "justice" system.
Sure violence is "a problem" - it is also a symptom that something is wrong in the context which created it. With the conflation of "reasonable" and "non criminal", or "non reasonable" and "criminal", you went into bad waters.
> cowardly down-voter
You have to understand that we sometimes downvote and then go composing instead of "I'll compose now and downvote later", for practical reasons. So, while potentially unnerving (especially from the frequentistic expectation in a forum full of snipers), you have to give it some time.
My core objection you received almost immediately.
> Don't go there.
Which is it? Discuss or don't go there.
> Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power
That sounds like something taken straight out of a 'progressive' party program.
If anything those groups receive preferential treatment, at least where I live (Sweden, Europe). State subsidies, positive discrimination, hiring quotas, publicly funded facilities and festivals and more. Far above average representation in public media and culture.
> All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.
'harm' is also a word often seen in 'progressive' discourse where it seems to serve the purpose of enabling those who use it to equate minor inconveniences like dirty looks to physical and (in this case) lethal violence. In the current discussion on public executions of 'AI' (etc.) execs I don't think the term is applicable.