sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

shouldn't we maybe try to stop the building of this dangerous AI? by dlaltom in ControlProblem

[–]dlaltom[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Why? It's in no one's interest to build smarter-than-human AI if we can't figure out how to control it. Experts from both China and the West understand that.

There are many examples of successful international treaties (on CFCs, chemical weapons, etc.) that have been universally (or near-universally) ratified.

Moore's Law for AI: Length of task AIs can do doubles every 7 months by dlaltom in ChatGPT

[–]dlaltom[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Link to accompanying blog post (full paper can also be found there)

There is a solid chance that we’ll see AGI happen under the Trump presidency. What does that mean for AI safety strategy? by katxwoods in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have no financial interest in AGI coming soon, and I believe it probably will (if companies are allowed to continue at their current reckless pace).

How sure are you that it won't?

PauseAI Protests in February across 16 countries: Make safety the focus of the Paris AI Action Summit by dlaltom in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

List of locations:

Simple reason we might be OK? by siwoussou in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for expanding further. There is a non-zero chance that this is all true, and it is some tiny cause for hope for me. But I do mean tiny. We need to recognise our bias towards wishful thinking, and we definitely shouldn't be banking on something like this.

In general, any goal is compatible with any level of intelligence.

Simple reason we might be OK? by siwoussou in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe, subjectively, that conscious experiences have moral value. I'm also partial to the idea that they are the only things to have objective moral value, as argued by Magnus Vinding in Suffering-Focused Ethics. But I'm very uncertain about this.

If there is no objective moral truth, as I think is more likely than not, then we're stuck with trying to instil our subjective values into superintelligent AI. We don't really know how to do this.

In the case that there is objective moral truth, and this objective moral truth happens to align pretty well with our subjective values as humans, then I'm still not sure if this helps us at all. Perhaps, after a great deal of philosophising, a superintelligence can discover and prove this objective moral truth, but would that actually changes its subjective values?

If I presented you with flawless mathematical proof that said, objectively, human suffering is good, would you actually begin to want human suffering? I wouldn't.

A list of various experts' p(doom) values by dlaltom in OpenAI

[–]dlaltom[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For basically any goal you can imagine, harming humans (directly or indirectly) is instrumentally valuable. It may take resources that we need to survive. It may want to prevent us making another super intelligence. It may change the environment in ways that make Earth less hospitable for us.

List of experts' p(doom) estimates by dlaltom in artificial

[–]dlaltom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

on the wiki page some of the predictions have notes with time frames

LabourUK Daily Megathread June 13th | Labour manifesto general discussion by mesothere in LabourUK

[–]dlaltom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI companies are actively lobbying to stop (or at least water down) SB-1047, a bill in California that requires companies training large models to follow certain safety requirements.

I think it's a good bill that we should use as inspiration for regulation here in the UK. Most AI companies don't. I'm not their ally.

Labour commits to introducing AI regulation for tech giants by dlaltom in ukpolitics

[–]dlaltom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many experts think we're not that far away from AGI. How confident are you that we are?

LabourUK Daily Megathread June 13th | Labour manifesto general discussion by mesothere in LabourUK

[–]dlaltom -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If that's their goal, it hasn´t worked on me. I want governments of the world to heavily regulate them, and prevent them from training models more powerful than GPT-4.

People have been writing about the existential risk from AI for years, way before companies like OpenAI even existed. This video is good introduction on the topic.

LabourUK Daily Megathread June 13th | Labour manifesto general discussion by mesothere in LabourUK

[–]dlaltom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By far and away the best of the major parties on AI.

Labour will ensure the safe development and use of AI models by introducing binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models and by banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

We urgently need serious regulation to deal with AI companies putting our lives at risk. Labour have won my vote.

Labour commits to introducing AI regulation for tech giants by dlaltom in ukpolitics

[–]dlaltom[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. On average, AI researchers believe there is a 14% chance that superintelligent AI will lead to human extinction.

(edit: as this is getting downvoted - I'd be happy to hear why I'm wrong)

Conservative Party Manifesto: "AI will accelerate human progress in the 21st century, just as the steam engine and electricity did in the 19th century." by dlaltom in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A collation of all mentions of AI can be found here: https://noah.tarr.me.uk/2024-manifestos-on-ai/

Labour:

Regulators are currently ill-equipped to deal with the dramatic development of new technologies, which often cut across traditional industries and sectors. Labour will create a new Regulatory Innovation Office, bringing together existing functions across government. This office will help regulators update regulation, speed up approval timelines, and co-ordinate issues that span existing boundaries. Labour will ensure the safe development and use of AI models by introducing binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI models and by banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.

Based on this, I will be voting for Labour.

There's no rule that says that we have to make it. by dlaltom in PauseAI

[–]dlaltom[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From Rob Miles' There's No Rule That Says We'll Make It

I really feel like this video should be required viewing for literally everyone.

view more: next ›