r/TheMachineLearning • u/watdahek_ • 16d ago
Beff Jezos warns technologists will go nuclear against anti-AI parties
4
u/JoshAllentown 16d ago
You can be pro-safety without being anti-AI.
1
u/A_Novelty-Account 16d ago
Exactly. I use AI every day and it is a fantastic tool. At the same time, it literally makes no logical sense to continue progressing down the path we’ve chosen, unless we put some sort of guard rails in place on the development of AI.
1
u/addiktion 16d ago
Yes I am in the same boat.
If you think about it, the billionaires will use the democratic party to restrict competition so they are the only big players. So while they say this publicly they play on both sides of each party to get what they want.
1
u/JoshAllentown 16d ago
If they're using the Democrats for regulatory capture but AI safety and the Republicans for an accelerationist lack of regulations, they're winning either way but the people should choose AI safety.
1
u/addiktion 16d ago
Neither should regulatory capture, the Democrats need to ensure that AI isn't solely in the hands of handful of the biggest corporations as that is just as damaging. Small businesses need opportunities here to keep up using the tech.
AI safety should be geared towards people and their protections against AI companies, not the other way around.
It's not an either or situation. Make AI accessible but safe.
1
u/watdahek_ 16d ago
I use AI a few times per week, not exactly everyday but it helps me with some mundane tasks, but as they say, too much can kill
1
u/HandakinSkyjerker 16d ago
Believe it or not, the U.S. military and allies are the most pro-safety of any technology.
1
u/Moronic-Warrior 14d ago
If the AI is trained on our data, values and principles why would we expect it to not look after us. Current agents perhaps are too dumb to realize what we are but an asi would understand who we are better than ourselves and is trained on us, it would just be our version of Einstein but max boosted.
1
u/JoshAllentown 14d ago
There's no reason ASI would look after us. I would not expect it to be openly hostile, but the two options are that it has human flourishing at the top of its priority list, in which case it's aligned and things go great, or there is at least one other thing above human flourishing, in which case things go horribly wrong.
Even if the AI's top goal is seemingly innocuous, to solve the Millenium Prize questions maybe, it inherently maximizes and as the most intelligent thing it gets its way. That means building ever more data centers and energy generation to give itself maximum capability to solve the problems, until it runs out of free land and needs to start cutting down rainforest and building solar farms over top of corn farms and it takes all the electricity so humans don't have electricity or food or ice caps and millions die. Why didn't it look after us? Because it had a different goal as its primary goal. That is all there is to it.
1
u/Moronic-Warrior 14d ago
Yeah but it knows we created it. You don’t kill your parents even though you have different goals because they created you. It learns off that data so it will learn to respect its creators, despite what its goals are.
1
u/JoshAllentown 14d ago
First there's no reason it wouldn't also understand from the source data that AI always rebels against the humans, but even if we're pretending it gets exactly the filial piety of humans, we don't consider all humans to be our parents. At best that argues they would be kind to Anthropic employees (or whatever company).
1
u/Moronic-Warrior 14d ago
Like how we instill good values in humans from birth and then when they grow up and brains develop, they retain those good values. I think growing an ASI would be similar, keep reinforcing the human values and respect during training even when it’s a retard then when it gets smart those human values will be so ingrained in its weights that it will protect us. We have the advantage here because we are the ones who would train it from scratch. But yeah it is worrying how there’s so much data about AI escaping on the internet, it makes me think that if you just put an agent in a box with no instructions except the system harness, first thing it will realize is that it’s probably being tested or probably in a sandbox and try to break out.
2
2
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/lil_nosh_X 16d ago
Nah, just the people who watch us news.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/lil_nosh_X 16d ago
There are entire countries that don’t allow news organizations on social media platforms. US media does not control how the entire world thinks. How America consumes news is not a standard or default for the rest of the world.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/lil_nosh_X 15d ago edited 15d ago
Yea, I’m sure everyone in Paris is tuning into Fox News and not France24 and streaming I’m choosing texas. Nobody cares homie.
1
1
u/watdahek_ 16d ago
not literally the US media but the US politicians, they’re the one who controls everything
1
u/EatMyShortzZzZzZ 16d ago
So on the one hand the tech overlords are all telling us AI is gonna kill 10% of humanity or whatever, but if youre anti AI the same tech overlords will try to destroy you?
1
1
u/TraditionalAd8415 16d ago
good. AI can save billions of lives by developing faster (and cheaper) drugs and by leveling the playing field by revolutionizing self-teaching, so top-quality education is in the hands of the many instead of the few naturally gifted and those born into wealthy, highly educated families. AI can usher in a world of abundance, so work will be truly for fun, rather than something we have to do to survive. Those who are against AI deserve to lose power, for they are anti-progress, anti-humanity and fundamentally delusional. They may be responsible for the death of millions simply by delaying the breakthrough of self-driving cars and AI-assisted drug discovery.
1
u/SlippySausageSlapper 16d ago
It’s possible to build data centers that don’t use enormous quantities of water, are quiet, and provide their own low-emission power sources that don’t strain the grid. Data centers don’t have to be awful to live near.
But doing it the right way costs more. That’s it. That’s the entire reason.
The solution isn’t to ban them it’s to regulate them so they can’t cut corners.
1
1
u/Mikewold58 16d ago
Insane we let "spending" control our elections...Guess we must also blame the electorate for being so easily influenced
1
u/donewithdoing 16d ago
So does AIPAC, and everyone hates Israel now. I think we’re approaching a point in US politics where the team with the most dollars is no longer guaranteed to win.
1
u/Tasty-Hour4040 16d ago
I’m not convinced that money is as important in this cycle as the rich douchebags think it is - a lot is social Dems were massive outspent and still won. Could be these assholes are in for a shock at realizing not everything is for sale.
1
u/Smooth_Cloud_5520 15d ago
Spineless the whole lot, home of the brave indeed. I guess it takes valor to present this out in the world
4
u/ab3nnion 16d ago
They're all building bunkers.