this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
361 points (88.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Money wins, every time. They're not concerned with accidentally destroying humanity with an out-of-control and dangerous AI who has decided "humans are the problem." (I mean, that's a little sci-fi anyway, an AGI couldn't "infect" the entire internet as it currently exists.)

However, it's very clear that the OpenAI board was correct about Sam Altman, with how quickly him and many employees bailed to join Microsoft directly. If he was so concerned with safeguarding AGI, why not spin up a new non-profit.

Oh, right, because that was just Public Relations horseshit to get his company a head-start in the AI space while fear-mongering about what is an unlikely doomsday scenario.


So, let's review:

  1. The fear-mongering about AGI was always just that. How could an intelligence that requires massive amounts of CPU, RAM, and database storage even concievably able to leave the confines of its own computing environment? It's not like it can "hop" onto a consumer computer with a fraction of the same CPU power and somehow still be able to compute at the same level. AI doesn't have a "body" and even if it did, it could only affect the world as much as a single body could. All these fears about rogue AGI are total misunderstandings of how computing works.

  2. Sam Altman went for fear mongering to temper expectations and to make others fear pursuing AGI themselves. He always knew his end-goal was profit, but like all good modern CEOs, they have to position themselves as somehow caring about humanity when it is clear they could give a living flying fuck about anyone but themselves and how much money they make.

  3. Sam Altman talks shit about Elon Musk and how he "wants to save the world, but only if he's the one who can save it." I mean, he's not wrong, but he's also projecting a lot here. He's exactly the fucking same, he claimed only he and his non-profit could "safeguard" AGI and here he's going to work for a private company because hot damn he never actually gave a shit about safeguarding AGI to begin with. He's a fucking shit slinging hypocrite of the highest order.

  4. Last, but certainly not least. Annie Altman, Sam Altman's younger, lesser-known sister, has held for a long time that she was sexually abused by her brother. All of these rich people are all Jeffrey Epstein levels of fucked up, which is probably part of why the Epstein investigation got shoved under the rug. You'd think a company like Microsoft would already know this or vet this. They do know, they don't care, and they'll only give a shit if the news ends up making a stink about it. That's how corporations work.

So do other Lemmings agree, or have other thoughts on this?


And one final point for the right-wing cranks: Not being able to make an LLM say fucked up racist things isn't the kind of safeguarding they were ever talking about with AGI, so please stop conflating "safeguarding AGI" with "preventing abusive racist assholes from abusing our service." They aren't safeguarding AGI when they prevent you from making GPT-4 spit out racial slurs or other horrible nonsense. They're safeguarding their service from loser ass chucklefucks like you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] arthur@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not now, not in the current state of machine learning. And also, I don't think it would happen intentionally like the sci-fi scenarios. But I think the gray goo hypothesis very plausible if we reach some kind of true AI.

Which is not the case yet, LLMs are just autocomplete systems, very powerful for sure, but just that.

For now, the main concern should be economy and social disruptions caused by the use of such tools... And the current climatic apocalypse.

[โ€“] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gray goose another bit Hollywood made up nonsense. It doesn't matter how intelligent an artificial intelligence is it still has to abide by the laws of physics.

You cannot have exponentially increasing production without also having exponentially increasing energy requirements to sustain that production. Anyway converting the whole world into nanobots is like the least useful format for most of the materials to be in.

Anyway I don't subscribe to the theory that just because an entity is more intelligent than us it will necessarily want to do anything bad to us. An AI is unlikely to become self-determining because it's underlying programming will limit its capabilities.

The paperclip problem is possible (especially Facebook or Twitter are the ones to implement it), but skynet, no chance.

[โ€“] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They grey goo apocalypse already happened.

The whole planet is covered in self replicating machines.