This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Probably, although investing in something does not necessarily mean each investor probabilistically expects returns from that specific investment. (If this does not make sense, I strongly recommend reading "Innovation – The New Conservatism?" by Peter Drucker.) Humorously, I seem to recall that OpenAI explicitly advised its investors that their goal might render monetary returns moot.
Now this I think is a decent definition. But it doesn't get you to godlike powers (plenty of people still get pwned by monkeys and dogs. And of course going by test scores the top-end AIs are already superintelligent relative to large portions of the population.) There's no reason to think doing well on a test will allow you to make weapons with physics unknown to humanity as you've suggested, any more than Einstein was able to.
I don't think this is true. There are a lot of specialized AI products or "wrappers" out there, with specific tweaks for people like lawyers, researchers, government affairs analysts and communications/PR types, not to mention specialized video generation models. (OpenAI alone lists seven models on their website, six of which are GPT models and one of which is a specialized video generation model.)
My non-exhaustive experience reading real-life evaluations suggests that the general models do not necessarily cut it in these specialized fields, and that the specialized models exist and likely will continue to exist for a reason (even if that reason is only "user friendliness" although as I understand it currently the specialized products have capabilities that general models do not.)
For the reasons I have laid out (as well as regulatory ones), military and civilian applications already using AI (such a missile guidance systems, military and civilian autopilots, car safety features, household appliances, etc.etc.) are unlikely to switch in the near future to LLMs. (In fact I suspect there will probably never be a reason to switch in most of these cases, although they might end up being coded by LLMs, or attached to LLMs to produce a unified product that combines the coding and features of several AI.)
Do you think the guy suggesting we should retain the capability to nuke datacenters is arguing that we can afford to laugh them off, or nah?
I don't think you fully understand how the US regulatory system works. Merely producing large numbers of pages to sate its lust or cutting arguments to satisfy its reason does not mean it will give you what you want.
Now, it's quite possible that AI will skate past the eye of Sauron for very human reasons (the Big Tech pull in D.C. you allude to for instance).
I don't think these are mutually exclusive. (And anyone who knows anything about demigods, spirits and powers knows that for all their power and intelligence it's possible to outwit them, which makes them a pretty interesting comparator for AI here). I agree (as I think I mentioned) that it's good to have competing models. I would also prefer not to give them direct access to nuclear weapons. I think this is a reasonable position.
More options
Context Copy link