正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
The Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 Doom Debate has dropped!!! Noah Smith is a highly influential writer & economist who's not afraid to share bold takes like: 📝 Plentiful, high-paying jobs in the age of AI 📝 Godlike AI will tend toward friendliness A brilliant thinker and great debater, yet his... show more
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![Stunning clip about the insane future Elon Musk is steering us toward. Elon says: 1. We can't expect to be "in charge" of AI for long, because humans will soon only have 1% of the combined total human+AI intelligence. 2. We'll focus on building AI overlords that have “values that cause intelligence to be propagated into the universe” 3. These AIs will “have humanity continuing to expand, because if you're curious, you're trying to understand the universe, [so] one of the things you're trying to understand is, where will humanity go?” Dwarkesh correctly flags the problem with Elon's logic: Aren't the priorities for "spreading humans" different from those of "understanding the universe" and from those of "spreading intelligence"? Elon replies that "in order to understand the universe, you have to expand the scale and probably the scope of intelligence", failing to address Dwarkesh's question about why this would imply a high priority for "spreading humans". Dwarkesh then further observes that humans have tried to understand the universe without trying to spread chimpanzees, casting more doubt on Elon's supposed “corrolary”. Elon replies that "we actually have made protected zones for chimpanzees" — as if that's comparable to humans letting chimpanzees spread in order to understand the universe. Dwarkesh tries one more followup: Are we aiming for superintelligent AI to treat humans the way humans have treated chimps? Finally, Elon repeats his claim: “I think Grok would care about expanding human civilization”. He doesn't try to defend his original implication, that an AI's drive to understand the universe implies allocating a substantial fraction of the universe in the service of humanity. Instead, Elon just promises he'll somehow personally emphasize the importance of expanding human consciousness to Grok: “Hey Grok, who's your daddy? Don't forget to expand human consciousness.” To recap: ⬜ Elon acknowledges that AIs like Grok will soon be in charge, not humans ⬜ He claims maximally-curious AIs that just care about understanding the universe will naturally care to “see where humanity goes” ⬜ He acknowledges that, actually, there might be more to this whole “getting AI to prioritize expanding human consciousness” thing, but it'll be okay because Grok will listen to requests about that kind of thing from its daddy. The stunning thing isn't that Elon has this shallow, self-contradictory outlook on the near future of all our lives — it's that every frontier AI company CEO would make equally insane claims about what happens to humanity after a few more years of letting their company operate, if pressed in an interview or debate. It shouldn't be legal for companies to carry out plans to permanently take away humanity's control over the future while clinging to shallow arguments why humanity might still survive, should it? -- P.S. The only show that cross-examines its guests' existentially-important nonconsensus AI claims more than two questions deep is Doom Debates.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2020906862397489492/amplify_video_thumb/2020904610400260096/img/dlMmQe7FW6nROsst.jpg)
![Legendary technologist Jann Tallin: “Extinction from godlike AI is not just possible, but imminent.” “We are close.” “AI will not leave any survivors“ “On the current trajectory, you are not going to live very long” “A recent poll found that 88% of AI engineers think that AI could destroy the world.” PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: “Humanity is akin to a teenager with rapidly developing physical abilities, lagging wisdom and self control, little thought for its long term future, and an unhealthy appetite for risk. There is an increasing consensus: Alan Turing, in 1951, predicted that we should expect to lose control to machines, and the inventor of deep learning itself, Geoff Hinton, starting to have doubts about his life work. There are now hundreds of AI experts sounding their alarm bells. A recent poll found that 76% of American voters believe AI is a threat to our existence. Just yesterday, there was news that one of the leading superforecaster groups published their prediction that their estimate for AI catastrophic risk is 30%. 30%! The battle for establishing that AI is an existential risk, a battle that I spent roughly 15 years of my career on, has now all but won. I'm going to show that there are fundamental reasons why underlying godlike AI will not leave any survivors. That we are now close to such AI but have no idea how to align it. And how skeptics’ counterarguments are, sadly, extremely weak. [AI will be like a new apex species. And humans - an apex species - have driven other countless other species to extinction.] Godlike AI will not care about humans because of a dirty secret of the AI industry: AIs are not built, they are grown. The ‘p’ in Chat GPT stands for pretrained. Pretraining - "summoning" - is a process where simple two page program is soaked in terabytes of data and megawatts of electricity and left like that for months. And then, after that, attempts are made to tame the emergent alien mind. Importantly, those methods of taming rely on the AI being less competent than the humans who are taming it now. The reason why we expect that we are close to godlike AI is that the trend of AI is getting more powerful and is now visible to everyone. It's obvious. Just look at capability differences between GPT2, GPT3, and GPT4. GPT-2 was released in 2019. A simple extrapolation would take us to GPT-7 before this decade is over. So, in summary, we are blindly growing increasingly competent minds while hoping that they are not so competent that they spin out of control and destroy our living environment. Unfortunately, that hope is not justified, which explains increasing anxiety among the AI developers themselves. Of course, at this point, just like a patient that has received a terminal diagnosis, you are encouraged to seek a second opinion. Unfortunately, having been part of this debate for more than a decade, I already know what you're going to hear. First, labeling. These are arguments like “Oh, this is science fiction” or “This is alarmism” “These are doomsayers” “Don't listen to people with that non-virtuous property, X.” Second, frame control. “AI is like X, and X is very nice, right?” This has now reached grotesque levels. One prominent VC claimed recently that “AI is basically just math, so why should we worry?” Imagine the captain of Titanic announcing, “don't worry, passengers, this is just water.” Third class of arguments, human supremacy. “AI can never do X” Or “we are very far from AI doing X.” Unfortunately, reality has been very harsh judge here recently. The set of things that only humans can do is collapsing really rapidly. There's now growing global consensus that the unregulated, blind AI scaling is reckless and dangerous. So we need to constrain AI or ban AI altogether. Just like we banned human cloning. You have received a terminal diagnosis. Please don't simply ignore it.” --- Jann Tallin is founder of Skype and Kazaa](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1749384479519457298/ext_tw_video_thumb/1749383664159387648/pu/img/ks6RSq7HRZHpjBHu.jpg)
