6 ms·

None of the world-leading scientists that co-authored this paper: https://managing-ai-risks.com/ https://managing-ai-risks.com/ Work for big labs? How is that

by nmca 3y ago

None of the world-leading scientists that co-authored this paper: https://managing-ai-risks.com/ https://managing-ai-risks.com/ Work for big labs? How is that you think the proposed conspiracy works exactly? They're paying off Yoshua Bengio? (disclaimer: I work on safety for a large lab. But none of these proponents do!)

Wurdan 3y ago
And how many of them have been invited to the White House to share their concerns? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/04/readout-of-white-house-meeting-with-ceos-on-advancing-responsible-artificial-intelligence-innovation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... I don't see any of their names in this meeting's attendees, for example. Sam Altman's there, Satya Nadella's there, Sundar Pichai's there... No Yoshua Bengio, though. What the person you replied to is saying is that commercial developers of AI have a significant financial incentive to be the ones defining what risky AI looks like. If they can guide the regulatory process to only hinder development that they didn't want to do anyway (like develop AI powered nuclear missile launch systems) then it opens the gates for them to develop AI which could replace 27% of jobs currently done by people (https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revolution-says-oecd-2023-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revo...) and become the richest enterprises in history.
- nmca 3y ago
  You're confusing "that one photo of three ceos at the whitehouse" with "all government solicitation of expert opinion on AI". It's correct that the meeting you're thinking of was industry-heavy, but the process in general has had a lot of academic input from, e.g Marcus, Tegmark, etc. See the recent summit in the UK, etc.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    .. academic-heavy position letters have been ignored before

by nmca 3y ago

Wurdan 3y ago

And how many of them have been invited to the White House to share their concerns? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/04/readout-of-white-house-meeting-with-ceos-on-advancing-responsible-artificial-intelligence-innovation/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... I don't see any of their names in this meeting's attendees, for example. Sam Altman's there, Satya Nadella's there, Sundar Pichai's there... No Yoshua Bengio, though. What the person you replied to is saying is that commercial developers of AI have a significant financial incentive to be the ones defining what risky AI looks like. If they can guide the regulatory process to only hinder development that they didn't want to do anyway (like develop AI powered nuclear missile launch systems) then it opens the gates for them to develop AI which could replace 27% of jobs currently done by people (https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revolution-says-oecd-2023-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/27-jobs-high-risk-ai-revo...) and become the richest enterprises in history.

nmca 3y ago
You're confusing "that one photo of three ceos at the whitehouse" with "all government solicitation of expert opinion on AI". It's correct that the meeting you're thinking of was industry-heavy, but the process in general has had a lot of academic input from, e.g Marcus, Tegmark, etc. See the recent summit in the UK, etc.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  .. academic-heavy position letters have been ignored before