5 ms·

> This will not happen though, because these stories are marketing. The magnitude and the complexity of the cynicism displayed by some people when it comes to

> This will not happen though, because these stories are marketing. The magnitude and the complexity of the cynicism displayed by some people when it comes to AI risks is mind-blowing. It's like if the NRA reported on school shootings and people said "oh, they probably fake these shootings to make guns sound dangerous and sell more of them". OpenAI could report that its AI started spontaneously generating illegal porn and sending it to people and you'd still think it was a marketing stunt.

dgellow 2mo ago
It’s honestly something the AI vendors brought on themselves, and the fact the current US government is a bunch of corrupt kleptocrats
mosura 2mo ago
It is because a loud part of the doomerist contingent believe only a major disaster will provide the motivation for regulation, so they are practically hoping to cultivate a major disaster. (Given their preoccupation with bioweapons that probably means a pandemic). This is based on similar thinking to how the world would not have considered nuclear weapons a major threat if they had forever stayed unused. The irony of the doomer position is it achieves exactly their supposed nightmare scenario of disaster leading to authoritarian world government without any of the supposed benefits, the twist being they get to be the authoritarian world government so they are ok with it.
- PoignardAzur 2mo ago
  So your assessment of the "doomerist" position is that they believe people aren't taking AI risks seriously enough, and that only a large enough catastrophe will wake people up, and your position is we should... Ignore increasingly blatant minor catastrophes to spite them?
  - mosura 2mo ago
    This isn’t a minor catastrophe. It is OpenAI being utterly irresponsible by not sandboxing their testing appropriately, to the point it has to be deliberate to provoke uneducated hysteria, which it obviously, sadly, achieves. Sandboxing processes on networks is not exactly rocket science, and it is something their existing products would readily help them setup.
- dgellow 2mo ago
  I have no idea where you’re getting your information from. I’m extremely skeptical of AI and see it as an anti-human technology we would be better without. I believe we are in a massive economical AI bubble that will eventually collapse, unless a financial miracle happens and it is somehow deflated extremely carefully. So I assume you would consider me a doomer. What do biological weapons and world government have to do with that? I’m sorry but your comment reads fairly unhinged to me
anon373839 2mo ago
I wouldn't describe this stunt as marketing: I would describe it as a bungled attempt to manufacture evidence to get regulatory capture, which OpenAI desperately needs. (Bungled, because Hugging Face fended off the intrusion and got their story out faster than OpenAI did.)
ungreased0675 2mo ago
I could be wrong, but OpenAI has done the “too dangerous and powerful to release to the public” story a couple times, only to release it shortly afterwards. They have no credibility with me and I don’t trust them.

dgellow 2mo ago

It’s honestly something the AI vendors brought on themselves, and the fact the current US government is a bunch of corrupt kleptocrats

mosura 2mo ago

It is because a loud part of the doomerist contingent believe only a major disaster will provide the motivation for regulation, so they are practically hoping to cultivate a major disaster. (Given their preoccupation with bioweapons that probably means a pandemic). This is based on similar thinking to how the world would not have considered nuclear weapons a major threat if they had forever stayed unused. The irony of the doomer position is it achieves exactly their supposed nightmare scenario of disaster leading to authoritarian world government without any of the supposed benefits, the twist being they get to be the authoritarian world government so they are ok with it.

PoignardAzur 2mo ago
So your assessment of the "doomerist" position is that they believe people aren't taking AI risks seriously enough, and that only a large enough catastrophe will wake people up, and your position is we should... Ignore increasingly blatant minor catastrophes to spite them?
- mosura 2mo ago
  This isn’t a minor catastrophe. It is OpenAI being utterly irresponsible by not sandboxing their testing appropriately, to the point it has to be deliberate to provoke uneducated hysteria, which it obviously, sadly, achieves. Sandboxing processes on networks is not exactly rocket science, and it is something their existing products would readily help them setup.
dgellow 2mo ago
I have no idea where you’re getting your information from. I’m extremely skeptical of AI and see it as an anti-human technology we would be better without. I believe we are in a massive economical AI bubble that will eventually collapse, unless a financial miracle happens and it is somehow deflated extremely carefully. So I assume you would consider me a doomer. What do biological weapons and world government have to do with that? I’m sorry but your comment reads fairly unhinged to me

anon373839 2mo ago

I wouldn't describe this stunt as marketing: I would describe it as a bungled attempt to manufacture evidence to get regulatory capture, which OpenAI desperately needs. (Bungled, because Hugging Face fended off the intrusion and got their story out faster than OpenAI did.)

ungreased0675 2mo ago

I could be wrong, but OpenAI has done the “too dangerous and powerful to release to the public” story a couple times, only to release it shortly afterwards. They have no credibility with me and I don’t trust them.