By design, because they don’t want some basement guy launching skynet.
I have to agree, I trust a handful of big shops, some of which could actually be killed by ethics people against the wishes of investors, far more than the entire internet. It still might not be enough, but there is no applying breaks whatsoever if anyone can take the next step.
Which oligarch? I mean, yes there’s definitely a degree of trusting “the right sort” there, but capitalism isn’t a team sport and they’re not a team. Honestly one of them might launch skynet anyway, if that’s how the technology grows, but a few people are theoretically able to agree not to do something, while legions never can.
So do you think it should all be open sourced, then? And if so, are you a skeptic of “AI alignment”, or even “AI safety”?
Any of them. They don’t necessarily like each other or team up, but they are smart enough to understand that an upstart toppling one is a potential threat to all of them. All things being equal, keep the game board the way it is, without any unwelcome surprises coming in to kick things over.
I do think it should be open sourced, just so that those of us who aren’t oligarchs have a chance to at least tread water a little longer. Those of us who aren’t wealthy need all the help we can get during a time where our inherent disposability has been writ large as a warning.
Am I a skeptic of AI alignment? No. What I’ve observed is that AI systems tend to reflect their creators’ goals and ethics quite well. Problem is, their goals and ethics are pretty much the same as the human race’s for the last few centuries. Built in racism? No shit, it would have been strange if the construct hadn’t acted that way.
Am I a skeptic of AI safety? Yes, I think the idea is complete bullshit. AI reflects the goals, prejudices, and ethics of its creators quite well, which if you look at human history is anything but safe and sound. To put it another way, if you’ve got the money and the chops to build an AI system, you’re going to build it to make sure you don’t lose what you have already and see if you can get hold of more of what you have (at first to recoup the cost, then just to get hold of more wealth). If you’re the military you’re going to want to make sure you’re on equal footing with your enemies, both explicit and implicit at the very least (probably half of ‘warfighting superiority’ is propaganda; if you look at the breakdowns it’s closer to equal footing with the usual margin of error).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
By design, because they don’t want some basement guy launching skynet.
I have to agree, I trust a handful of big shops, some of which could actually be killed by ethics people against the wishes of investors, far more than the entire internet. It still might not be enough, but there is no applying breaks whatsoever if anyone can take the next step.
They don’t want somebody toppling an oligarch, you mean.
Which oligarch? I mean, yes there’s definitely a degree of trusting “the right sort” there, but capitalism isn’t a team sport and they’re not a team. Honestly one of them might launch skynet anyway, if that’s how the technology grows, but a few people are theoretically able to agree not to do something, while legions never can.
So do you think it should all be open sourced, then? And if so, are you a skeptic of “AI alignment”, or even “AI safety”?
Any of them. They don’t necessarily like each other or team up, but they are smart enough to understand that an upstart toppling one is a potential threat to all of them. All things being equal, keep the game board the way it is, without any unwelcome surprises coming in to kick things over.
I do think it should be open sourced, just so that those of us who aren’t oligarchs have a chance to at least tread water a little longer. Those of us who aren’t wealthy need all the help we can get during a time where our inherent disposability has been writ large as a warning.
Am I a skeptic of AI alignment? No. What I’ve observed is that AI systems tend to reflect their creators’ goals and ethics quite well. Problem is, their goals and ethics are pretty much the same as the human race’s for the last few centuries. Built in racism? No shit, it would have been strange if the construct hadn’t acted that way.
Am I a skeptic of AI safety? Yes, I think the idea is complete bullshit. AI reflects the goals, prejudices, and ethics of its creators quite well, which if you look at human history is anything but safe and sound. To put it another way, if you’ve got the money and the chops to build an AI system, you’re going to build it to make sure you don’t lose what you have already and see if you can get hold of more of what you have (at first to recoup the cost, then just to get hold of more wealth). If you’re the military you’re going to want to make sure you’re on equal footing with your enemies, both explicit and implicit at the very least (probably half of ‘warfighting superiority’ is propaganda; if you look at the breakdowns it’s closer to equal footing with the usual margin of error).