Re:The Darwinian argument for worrying about AI
by mrguyorama on Friday June 30, 2023 @01:47PM
(#36539190)
What stops that person now?
Re:The Darwinian argument for worrying about AI
by ben_w on Friday June 30, 2023 @01:54PM
(#36539321)
ChatGPT being made to not do that. RHLF? Filtering? I don't know how.
Other AI being harder for idiots to use.
Gene printing labs looking out for the smallpox genome, or so I hear. But I don't know how they do that, so I can't say if I trust it.
Re:The Darwinian argument for worrying about AI
by Blahah on Friday June 30, 2023 @03:59PM
(#36541317)
Remarkably, almost nothing. In my comment above I wasn't saying that I think it's likely that chatgpt would have a person imprisoned, just that it's technically achievable. There are paid services for swatting. People do that to each other. An LLM could also do it with just a few lines of code. I don't think it's doomerism to say that people have made it possible to harm one another by sending messages and calling APIs, so an LLM could do it too. Humans are the problem, not AI.
Re:The Darwinian argument for worrying about AI
by ben_w on Friday June 30, 2023 @05:48PM
(#36542833)
We don't disagree much, FWIW; for me:
> Humans are the problem, not AI.
is
> Humans are the problem, as well as AI.
And in no small part because we make buggy AI, and that seems likely to still be true as capabilities go up.
But we're still a bunch of monkeys at the keyboards, almost literally and not just metaphorically.
AI doom doesn't require more intelligence than whatever the dumbest way to go is.
Super-intelligent AIs just have the extra problem that, if they exist, you can't out-smart them.
But you don't need them for AI to be a problem.