Wasn't it Tao who suggested, fairly early on, that the best way for a researcher to contribute to mathematics may be to drop everything else he or she is working on and study AI instead?
Pretty sure it was Tao but I could be wrong. In any case it now seems more defensible than it did when the idea was first broached.
Running a malicious build script is just as bad as running a malicious app, so I don´t see why you want that? Also F-droid has fully reproducible builds, so you can be sure you'll get the same binary.
This post isn't aimed at people that read a physical book for "nostalgia". They read a lot of books and have already decided that they prefer physical books to an ereader.
That makes no sense to me though. I always prefer physical books to any ereader, but I still stopped accumulating (new) books in my flat - they just accumulate space. I'll always love hardcopy books, but not needing them as a physical hardcopy is just better for me.
I had the same problem which inevitable made me buy a bigger apartment. It's hand down the best investment I have ever done since tangible book assets give you so many different an non curated insights which you can only get from reading. You should not see books as something that take up space but rather something that free up space
I just get rid of most books after reading, knowing that I won’t reread the great majority of them or need them as a reference. For the few that I might unexpectedly end up wanting to reread, it’s okay if I’ll have to reprocure them. That case hasn’t occurred so far.
This one. Recently I added "re-f" property to my templates for the Review base in Obsidian ie how probable a review/reread/rewatch factor that title has. And it's quite liberating to juas write zero there and remove/delete the title. Also helps with datahoarding tendecies.
> I do not doubt that these people are sincere in some private, psychological sense ... . As a media scholar, what interests me is not whether Hubinger believes his own number. What interests me is what this genre of utterance does in the world ... . My complaint is not that these statements are alarming. It is that they are apocalyptic in form, hypocritical in structure, and strategically productive in effect — and that they crowd out almost everything else we could be discussing
Strange to say that you think the people that are worrying about doom in public are being sincere, make no comment on whether you think the worry is valid, and yet still complain that its hype.
This is a great quote. I liked it so much that I had to look up where it is from.
"Adventures of a Mathematician", by Stanislaw M. Ulam.
> The Polish-born mathematician recalls his formative and early professional years in his pre-war homeland and his work and colleagues at Princeton, Harvard, Wisconsin, and Los Alamos.
Why not? Why can’t the believe their statements and also use them to generate hype?
If they sincerely believed them they shouldn’t be creating the doom machine to begin with anyway. If they believe it and keep going, are they even worth listening to on this topic? Beyond of course taking it at face value “I’m creating this doomsday machine and I will kill you with it inadvertently because it’s earning me a fuck ton of money and power”
I was kind of leaning toward thinking all the talk of doom was a bunch of self-serving regulatory-capture hype until this morning when the New York Times ran a long story about the Chinese military is also saying that AI is a threat.
If two sides so far apart from one another in so many ways see the same thing, there must be something to it.
I came away with a different read of this article. The article says the head of China’s Ministry of State Security sees AI as a threat to the CCP, specifically calling out deepfakes of party officials, cyberattacks on infrastructure, etc. He’s not calling it an existential risk to humanity.
The article then states this official accused U.S. companies of “hyping the dangers of the technology.”
So I don’t see how this article shows the U.S. and China seeing the same thing.
Read the article. The things the Chinese officials are worried about are:
* Fake videos / disinformation
* Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure
* Data leaks
* Advances in military sensing / targeting technology
These concerns have little in common with the Yudkowskian / apocalyptic doom marketing the US hyperscalers are pushing now. The Times even says this explicitly in the second paragraph of the article:
> "The unusually blunt assessment by Chen Yixin, the head of China’s Ministry of State Security, is IN CONTRAST TO the warnings dominating the A.I. debate in the United States, which have focused on the possibility that A.I. could slip out of human control or pose a threat to humanity itself"
Real threats that are happening to regular people already, vs marketing "threats" that the technology is too powerful / valuable.
The fact that you are chiming in to say you don't understand the difference between these 2 distinct categories of threats is fine, we can work on that. But the person who posted the article originally not only acknowledges the distinction, they falsely presented the article as evidence of non-western support for the latter category, even though both the Chinese official and the western reporter directly contradict that claim immediately at the beginning of the article.
Thinking AI is an existential threat to humanity because it will take over the world and thinking AI is a non-existential threat because it makes disinformation and hacking easier are not even remotely the same thing.
It's about as much of a common thread as comparing Shohei Ohtani to a loan-shark's enforcer because they both swing bats at things.
Could AI kill us all. YES!!! Are the people who are building "AI" right now on that path? I would be hard pressed to say even "maybe".
Ultimately continuing to scale the way they have is getting increasingly expensive. Thats the quiet part that none of them are saying out loud...
AI could kill us all but we cant afford to get there, were maxed out and it doesn't look like even with 10x as much money we will is NOT good for sales.
Could a break through happen for recursive self improvement, or continuous learning or continuous training - sure. But that isnt as likely and right now NO ON can afford to run experiments because there isnt the capacity out there even if you have capital.
Sure, it just seems odd to specify it. I haven't seen that in a link in a long time. I don't usually snoop Location redirect chains in my browser though, so maybe it's more common than I think.
No, the main issue is that it's hard to communicate pricing where token price increases as token count increases, and they figure they can approximate the parabola well enough with two lines.
> I have seen several cases where Pangram had some false negatives
Yep, Pangram says they think false positives are way worse than false negatives, so if their AI isn't sure enough they prefer a "not ai" output to an "is ai" output.
reply