> “The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,” he said. “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.”
Of course I read the article.
> What technology/inventions out there that _can't_ and _isn't_ used for bad?
I'm worried about security. I see products deployed today that I would not feel comfortable deploying or using myself. Sometimes the mistakes are embarrassingly basic (Hey OpenAI, why on earth are arbitrary remote images embeddable in GPT responses? There is no reason for the client to support that.)
So this is not a theoretical risk to me. It's a different concern than the philosophy.
We now have a few “live x-risks,” each one representing a high wire we cannot fall off of even once, but nor can we just choose to step off of them safely. AI is an additional potential doom we are suspended above, and if it lives up to its positive potential it’ll also be able to produce a million more x-risks by itself (e.g. viruses).
Additional risk is always bad, and is not mitigated by “other technologies before it also carried risk.” It’s all additional, and this is the biggest addition so far (if it lives up to its positive technological promise).
I don’t think the situation we’re in at the moment gives me much reason to believe we’re actually intelligent. Maybe we’re intelligent but we completely lack wisdom ?
Birds don’t sit around all day creating such huge problems for themselves. Only we seem to do that…time for a rethink?
What technology/inventions out there that _can't_ and _isn't_ used for bad? AGI is a red herring. Even if AGI is possible, we will soon destroy ourselves through simpler means and those are much more important concerns. It is much sexier to be talking about AGI whichever side you are on. But who wants to talk about solving the issues of the downtrodden?
> I guess the silver lining is that if you're genuinely losing sleep about GPT-4 becoming a general agent that does every job, don't worry -- that'll only last until it gets someone's bank account emptied or until some enemy combatant uses prompt injection to get a drone to bomb a different target. Unless this security problem gets solved, but none of the companies seem to care that much about security or view it as a blocker for launching whatever new product they have to try and drive up stock price or grab VC funding. So I'm not really holding my breath on that.
Have any technologists ever considered what making the lower bound of necessary intelligence higher? Have anyone in SV ever talked or known someone that can't do elementary math? And how common this is? All technological advancement have a long term cost to society. You are making the assumption that the human part is going to be completely removed. This is not true. Of course there will still be human somewhere in the mix. But there will be significantly less. Automating the whole customer service industry wouldn't make every shop void of any human. There will be only a single human, managing all the machines and spend their days looking at gigabytes of generated logs from 9 to 5. Is this a way to live? Yes, for some. But everyone?
Just think about the consequence of having all manual labor jobs getting replaced. Which is probably conceivable in the next 30 years at least. What do you think will happen to these people? Do you think they became manual labor because they wanted to or have to? Now that they can't join the manual labor force, what now? Turn their career around to looking at spreadsheets everyday? Do you seriously think everyone is capable of that? HN folks are probably on the right end of the distribution but refuses to consider the existence of the people at left end of the distribution or even the center.