afthonos

6 ms·

1.
by afthonos 4d ago
Agreed. Ellison’s path to that future went through AI.
2.
by afthonos 4d ago
It is always money — but it isn’t always only money. They are not asking for anything that will prevent them from making money in the future, but they are asking for help stopping the runaway train they’re on. These are compatible reque
3.
by afthonos 4d ago
Worse than extinction?
4.
by afthonos 4d ago
You are incorrectly cynical. They are telling you things are bad, and because you refuse to countenance they could be worse, you assume they must be better to comply with your mandate to disbelieve. A true cynic looks at the statements by
5.
by afthonos 13d ago
Important to note that KataGo was double-handicapped. 20 seconds per move maximum; it couldn’t read deep. Against an amateur, it doesn’t matter, but against a historically strong pro it matters a lot.
6.
by afthonos 1mo ago
Anthropomorphizing helps to create a lower bound for damage. If you can imagine a bad person doing it, AI will be at least that bad, unless proven otherwise. I think referring to AI as a tool obscures that, because we are not used to tool
7.
by afthonos 1mo ago
I think we may be using different words to describe the same concept. You think of it as them not being “people“, and I think of it as them not being “aligned“. But fundamentally, the problem is they are entities that take unpredictable act
8.
by afthonos 1mo ago
The dead astronauts were relieved to have been killed by something incapable of malice. As I’m sure will we.
9.
by afthonos 1mo ago
Obviously (a).
10.
by afthonos 2mo ago
> Are you asking if I can scare myself with a made-up hypothetical that overwhelms reason with emotion? No. I am asking if you are able to articulate at least one example of the “very very compelling evidence” you demand. Or do you want
11.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I can work with that analogy! You could, and yet you don’t. OpenAI’s model could, and did. If every human, given knowledge of Newtonian mechanics, went around blowing up bridges, yeah, I would consider knowing Newtonian mechanics dangerou
12.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I wonder if you also believe that everyone should have nuclear weapons? And if not, why not? The main argument I can see against it is that nuclear weapons are “purely offensive”, but as we can see since 1945, nuclear weapons are actually d
13.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I can give many examples of where I think they’ve been vindicated. But actually, the real question is: what would suffice to convince you ? Can you come up with a scenario that is horrific enough to you and that isn’t so far gone that
14.
by afthonos 2mo ago
With an AI model and what army?
15.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I am truly at a loss to communicate with someone who genuinely believes that knowing Newtonian physics and being able to hack into any target at will are the same thing.
16.
by afthonos 2mo ago
I think it’s possible to observe something and be sure that it’s true in aggregate without being able to accuse any one individual of it. I propose that in those cases, bringing it up in response to an individual is not a good move. It does
17.
by afthonos 2mo ago
That is a true statement. Here is another one: Some people like to talk about “some people” snidely, instead of just coming out and saying “GP is bloodthirsty and gets a little thrill [etc].” Because of course, that’s what they mean , but
18.
by afthonos 3mo ago
Indeed. I can’t find it, but I swear I knew after reading the announcement, without opening the model card. It stood out because it was so weird. Maybe they changed it before the first snapshot, maybe something else happened, I don’t know.
19.
by afthonos 3mo ago
It was in the announcement, too. I’m 99% sure they edited it after they changed their mind, because I knew about it from reading that, and never opened the model card.
20.
by afthonos 3mo ago
They didn’t get caught, they explicitly said they would do that in the announcement. I think it was both bad and a weird idea, but it certainly wasn’t sneaky.
21.
by afthonos 3mo ago
Carlin didn’t say it was silly, he said it didn’t matter. Religion, communism, fascism were all world-defining ideas, and they very much mattered to those who fought for them and against them. What am I saying, “mattered”. Go check social
22.
by afthonos 3mo ago
People the world over: (die for the right to vote) One comedian: LOL they only killed them to make you think it was valuable. The Internet: (sagely) What a wise assessment by a wise man of wisdom.
23.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Agreed. My point was to question the use of “just“ to obscure an incredibly complicated process, which has been shown repeatedly to rely on generalizations that are indistinguishable from world models. Now, it is true that the world they’re
24.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Let me make this clear: The United States predates you, and will almost certainly outlive you. You, an individual with a microscopic lifespan and negligible influence in the grand sweep of history, do not in fact share any guilt for the thi
25.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Nothing about an LLM is “just”. In what precise sense do you mean it is probabilistic?
26.
by afthonos 4mo ago
As expected by the exponential. The Wharton study was predicting when the exponential would turn into a sigmoid.
27.
by afthonos 4mo ago
…yeah, that’s where you see the exponential?
28.
by afthonos 4mo ago
Ah, I misread the post he was replying to.
29.
by afthonos 4mo ago
What did you think it was pronounced as?
30.
by afthonos 5mo ago
I wouldn’t either if I’d missed the previous word, “reporting”.

More ›