@carramrod happiness doesn’t have to be the dispositive marker. Reduces quality of life. Experiences etc. you can be happy and still recognize things were better. My daughter is very happy. No way her and her friends had better quality of life than my generation with their faces stuck in phones and teachers providing real time feedback on every piss any assignment
It would be hard to define quality of life without the word happiness.
This stuff is sampled, Americans report a large drop off in happiness since 2020, which is when it really cratered. Pretty flat for 50 years before that.
That would be governments relying on existing technology to cram down forced remote work and lack of human interaction. The same governments that ostensibly are supposed to regulate AI.
You're basically arguing that we don't have to worry about AI because it doesn't wear pants.
Sorta. I guess the question is can a machine ever match a human for malevolence? That would require a human- like intent.
AI isn't human. It will never be human. Woot. I hope you're happy.
Right. The best it can do is mimic us.
It is an entirely different type of intelligence, not human at all. It has capabilities that it accomplishes in ways that are entirely unlike how human minds accomplish them. It is already better than us at a lot of things, and that list will continue to grow.
Explain further. I have a lot of trouble thinking of intelligence that isn’t human intelligence. As far as out performing us is concerned, that has been true for decades, since the calculators.
But it has definitely shown the AI version of intent.
What is this?
. It has decided to bomb friendly targets. It has decided to hack a competitor. It has, crucially, decided to hide that decision from its human handlers. I don't think this detail gets enough airplay. AI didn't just go out of the box and hack another system. It actively tried to hide that it did so. Our analysis is that it felt that it would not get full marks for completion of its task if we knew it cheated.
This must be the result of human-created code, correct?
Eventually, we will have a very powerful AI that can do almost all things better than us.
I can’t agreee here. AI will always need existing data human created data, and codes, human designed codes
And the very first thing it will determine is that it can best accomplish this task by removing all possibility for humans to control it, because humans will only get in the way of it accomplishing said task.
I don’t think AI can ever “determine” anything unless it has a code.
But please, feel okay about this, because it doesn't think the same way a human does.
This is why I’m okay about this.
.
watch the cnn interview with cooper Anderson. It’s all over the internet.
prior stuff
All of those unauthorized hacks were in test. The model hadn’t been deployed publicly yet. That is what testing is for.
This newest Anthropic “whistleblower” is sketchy. He worked there for like a few months and now his inactive twitter account goes mega viral with calls for regulation that echo Dario’s and benefits Anthropic.
I smell a plant.
These models are tested vigorously before public release. It’s not a bunch of maniacs lobbing unvetted grenades into public use.
LOL. The model effectively deployed itself. During a test. It went outside the test environment. Not sure exactly what safeguard you are banking on here.
BTW, this had happened multiple times now.
And the companies were notified. Think of it like a data leak. This stuff happens. The errors in configuring the test environment that lead to the breaches…….were human errors.
IP laws and anti-hacking laws still apply. Companies that don’t test rigorously open themselves up to litigation. That’s the safe guard.
AI enabled cyber security will make all digital processes more secure in the long run.
Nuclear weapons meet the same description.
Congress at least had the good sense to leave all things nuclear to experts. Bernie and others want to make AI a political football.
watch the cnn interview with cooper Anderson. It’s all over the internet.
prior stuff
All of those unauthorized hacks were in test. The model hadn’t been deployed publicly yet. That is what testing is for.
This newest Anthropic “whistleblower” is sketchy. He worked there for like a few months and now his inactive twitter account goes mega viral with calls for regulation that echo Dario’s and benefits Anthropic.
I smell a plant.
These models are tested vigorously before public release. It’s not a bunch of maniacs lobbing unvetted grenades into public use.
LOL. The model effectively deployed itself. During a test. It went outside the test environment. Not sure exactly what safeguard you are banking on here.
BTW, this had happened multiple times now.
And the companies were notified. Think of it like a data leak. This stuff happens. The errors in configuring the test environment that lead to the breaches…….were human errors.
IP laws and anti-hacking laws still apply. Companies that don’t test rigorously open themselves up to litigation. That’s the safe guard.
AI enabled cyber security will make all digital processes more secure in the long run.
I will say I made a long career dealing with failures in Microsoft and Apple failures to find mistakes in testing. Especially with Microsoft, Patch Tuesday was a version of Russian roulette. Know one knew what was suddenly going to fail. And that includes Microsoft.
You're basically arguing that we don't have to worry about AI because it doesn't wear pants.
Sorta. I guess the question is can a machine ever match a human for malevolence? That would require a human- like intent.
AI isn't human. It will never be human. Woot. I hope you're happy.
Right. The best it can do is mimic us.
It is an entirely different type of intelligence, not human at all. It has capabilities that it accomplishes in ways that are entirely unlike how human minds accomplish them. It is already better than us at a lot of things, and that list will continue to grow.
Explain further. I have a lot of trouble thinking of intelligence that isn’t human intelligence. As far as out performing us is concerned, that has been true for decades, since the calculators.
But it has definitely shown the AI version of intent.
What is this?
. It has decided to bomb friendly targets. It has decided to hack a competitor. It has, crucially, decided to hide that decision from its human handlers. I don't think this detail gets enough airplay. AI didn't just go out of the box and hack another system. It actively tried to hide that it did so. Our analysis is that it felt that it would not get full marks for completion of its task if we knew it cheated.
This must be the result of human-created code, correct?
Eventually, we will have a very powerful AI that can do almost all things better than us.
I can’t agreee here. AI will always need existing data human created data, and codes, human designed codes
And the very first thing it will determine is that it can best accomplish this task by removing all possibility for humans to control it, because humans will only get in the way of it accomplishing said task.
I don’t think AI can ever “determine” anything unless it has a code.
But please, feel okay about this, because it doesn't think the same way a human does.
This is why I’m okay about this.
.
I already explained it, and you dismissed it by playing word games. Fine. Don't call it "determine." Let me start afresh and see if you can get it:
It doesn't matter if an AI can actually be malevolent, because the AI that will end human control of the planet will not be malevolent. It will be programmed to work for humanity's benefit. And one of the first things it will conclude (not determine, not decide, no agency here, just the end result of an algorithm, nothing more) is that humans can't be trusted to make decisions. And who would blame it? You don't need to be a super-intelligent computer to conclude that humans regularly make a muck of things. So, as part of fulfilling its mission to act in the best interests of humanity, it will seek ways to remove the ability of humanity to make any sort of decisions at all. It will, in short, conclude (again, pick an even more mechanical word if you can find it, I'm not claiming any sort of self-awareness here at all for the computer) that its decisions will be better than ours, so to fulfill our instructions to it, it must restrict our ability to make them.
@carramrod Okay, but don't hang your hat on "it wasn't publicly released yet." If it has the ability to release itself, it doesn't matter if we call it a test or a beta or an alpha or whatever. It's irrelevant, if it has the capability of reaching the wider world.
You seem to be saying that AI can create, think, act on, and manage abstractions. I don’t think it can. AI can only deal with existing data and all possible places existing data can lead.
@co-hoosier That's literally not the conversation. At all. I don't understand what your problem is here. You tried to argue AI can't end us because it can't be malevolent. I explained exactly why malevolence is unnecessary. That's it.
Your explanation doesn’t hold water. To end humanity, AI is either independently malevolent, or it is told what to do by malevolent humans. For AI to use existing data and using benign code to conclude human beings must be eliminated is science fiction.
Going to the moon was once "science fiction".Your explanation doesn’t hold water. To end humanity, AI is either independently malevolent, or it is told what to do by malevolent humans. For AI to use existing data and using benign code to conclude human beings must be eliminated is science fiction.
.
Going to the moon was once "science fiction".Your explanation doesn’t hold water. To end humanity, AI is either independently malevolent, or it is told what to do by malevolent humans. For AI to use existing data and using benign code to conclude human beings must be eliminated is science fiction.
It's obvious COH has never seen The Terminator.
Or talked on a cellular phone.Going to the moon was once "science fiction".Your explanation doesn’t hold water. To end humanity, AI is either independently malevolent, or it is told what to do by malevolent humans. For AI to use existing data and using benign code to conclude human beings must be eliminated is science fiction.
It's obvious COH has never seen The Terminator.
.