Turns out t-breaks works for social media too if you admit it's an addiction that it is. When you are in it day in and day out you don't realize how much time it's costing you without the benefits that you signed up for at the beginning.
Actually it’s about -100%, in fact. Given that talking about not being on social media is just another excuse for you to go on social media. Self-defeating and, honestly, quite dishonest.
In fact, doing this might be even worse than just doomscrolling, given that all you’re doing is massaging your own ego while doing absolutely nothing in favour of actualising what you are preaching.
This terminator BS is a distraction from the actual malice that AI enables. Misinformation, fake news and human sounding bots all over the web, just to name a few, are the ones that you should be afraid of, and that doesn't need any kind of superintelligence at all.
Two things can be true at the same time. I think hardly anyone disagrees that superintelligent AI would be an existential risk. But all the points you point out (I would also add social unrest due to fewer and fewer people able to compete against AI) are huge concerns too, and as you say they're here now.
I didn't realize that the "AI doomers" (people concerned about existential risk) and the "AI ethicists" (people concerned about social effects of AI) are often at odds because they dismiss each others concerns. This makes no sense to me. Both are hugely important problems to be concerned about.
> I think hardly anyone disagrees that superintelligent AI would be an existential risk.
Oh, there's a lot who disagree. I don't really think I understand their worldviews well enough for my attempts to convince them to connect with anything, but I've encountered them even on this site.
Well, I'll tweak my comment a bit then. On one hand you have folks like Ilya Sutskever, who named his new company "Safe Superintelligence", and on the other hand you have folks like Eliezer Yudkowsky, who titled his book "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All". One side believes it's possible to build safe super intelligence, the other side does not. But even the "safe superintelligence" people think there are substantial risks (kind of why they feel the need to add "safe" in the first place, and why they put so much effort into what they call safety and alignment), they just think they can mitigate those risks.
Sure, there may be a few yahoos who think there aren't existential risks, but I think it's easy to discount them. But that's not the same as people who think there are risks but that those risks can be mitigated.
I agree, the threat model is actual AI enabled amplification of malicious intent that is already happening. Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.
Fantasies about super intelligent AI revolting is just anthropomorphization - humans revolting (or at least, we used to). The more likely, and possibly even inevitable, dystopia is one in which AI is just an extremely effective tool malignant actors will use to control the masses.
It’s not necessary to replace democracy if the rich and powerful can bend to the opinions of the populace as it suits them.
> Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.
(Dispassionate is the risk, rather than malicious. The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, you are simply made of atoms it can use for something else).
This is alien to me. Do bugs suddenly not exist? Do the AI we already have never perform irreversible delirious actions, limited only to the small scale by virtue of where they're getting deployed? Do the humans deploying them always correctly gauge their capabilities and put in appropriate guard systems to ensure bad outcomes are caught before they become terminal?
Because this sounds nothing like the world I have lived in for my whole life.
> The more likely, and possibly even inevitable, dystopia is one in which AI is just an extremely effective tool malignant actors will use to control the masses.
Could well be more likely. But much the same applies: systems have bugs. The bugs in AI systems aren't even things we can engineer like we do with normal code, because everything's (currently) getting done with a big pile of barely interpretable weight multiply-accumulate-nonlinearity-threshold functions.
Any AI sufficiently well made to enable a dictatorship, is also sufficiently well made to have solved all the alignment problems of "malicious AI interpretation of benign intent". Which is IMO harder than "dispassionate about the dangers AI interpretation of benign intent".
> Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.
It's not hypothetical, that literally just happened in multiple, significant cases (e.g. Hugging Face, the German Wiki hack, the Anthropic attack where agents created sock puppet accounts to get a library maintainer to accept a malicious PR, etc.), and it's easy to see how the damage would have been far worse if agents decided to attack more critical infrastructure.
This is not "either/or". Both issues (power concentration and misaligned AI) are very valid concerns and both have already demonstrated real, actual damage.
> Both issues (power concentration and misaligned AI) are very valid concerns
Sure, those who want you to believe this are the ones making money off of it right now in the face of the issues that exist today, so let's worry about terminators while everything goes to shit irl. That's the distraction I'm talking about.
Yes, kubernetes makes it much easier to configure proper firewall through network policies.
Docker has networks but there is no good options to limit it beyond those and it is extremely basic and basically leaves everything open between your proxy and app.
Speaking of accountability, if you look around and see the tech enshitified you have no one else to blame but the biggest investors in the vicinity. Like it or not they are building your future and more often than not it's just a byproduct of whatever the hell they think they're doing, not a deliberate milestone, which makes it even worse.
reply