Safetyism and Techno-optimism aren’t the only options for dealing with AI risks. Technorealism is the framework needed to guide us through these issues.
So many cats to skin and so many ways to skin them the question is knowing when and how to apply which kind of organizational structure and decision-making process to drive the best decisions in the shortest (appropriate) amount of time.
But before all that what is the end goal, desired state, or target and why?
1. Agree
2. Agree but I would rather it be an American monster we are trying to contain than something foreign.
3. If the Nazi's had gotten there first how would have German's responded? We only did it twice and that was enough for the US.
4. Agree except when you need to resource something quickly or are facing an acute existential threat - Need to read up on how ancient Greece/Rome picked Dictators in time of need and how that would look like in polycentric model.
5. How far are we humans interconnected? Does it span across borders/countries? Humans vs AI, America-AI vs Chinese/Russian/Etc-AI, and is there AI-Fallout that could spread like radioactive fallout or cause nuclear-winter type events?
6. If not the state then it is the mob/organized crime that will fill in the gaps.
7. Word.
Also for the millenials - the adults aren't coming you are the adults so act like the adult you wish had come.
I know I came in hot before but these easy-nukes have IRL consequences and there is evidence to support that even 1% population loss is an existential threat.
Is this a better article (still same author) with less distracting/polarizing but it still raises a lot of the same points?
AI doesn't even have to be dangerous itself it just has to confuse enough humans that then go on to make bad decision based on the information they are being exposed to thanks to AI.
That to me is the mini-nuclear issue with AI, while not as an acute/drastic as an explosion the effects are insidious and largely ignored IMO.
If AI disinformation is able to cause democratic governance to grind to a halt, are corporations any better at insulating themselves from outsider interreference and if so at what cost?
I’m getting turned off by your approach to commenting. To answer you one final time, these are risks that should be taken seriously. I would not categorize them as existential but they could be systemic and should be taken seriously based on evidence.
As an outsider to AI this is what/why I worry about AI - for the medical field the easy-nukes have been around since COVID and solutions remain elusive. I apologize if my style is off putting. I'll see myself out now.
Also would love a discussion on this article - I agree that I don’t believe libertarianism can solve existential problems (if anything it only creates them). Not trying to create conflict but healthy discussion.
The state is a useful foil but much like a parent once they are gone life becomes exponentially more real and difficult.
Our Technorealism article isn't about Peter Thiel or his views, so I am not going to address the Vox article's argument even though it is a straw man. It doesn't pertain to this article. Technorealism explicitly recognizes the state as necessary and something that cannot be ignored. It also recognizes collective action to address risks as they arise.
Was not trying to make it about Theil, they are just a reference point for the collective vs individual response to existential threats.
It speaks to the collective vs individual concentration of power which is needed to respond to existential threats - which can be internal and external.
I agree with the concepts of techno-realism as presented in your article - seems like the most viable philosophy I am seeing.
I feel like there is a knowledge/logic chasm here that I am trying to bridge but am failing to understand or connect.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12518
So many cats to skin and so many ways to skin them the question is knowing when and how to apply which kind of organizational structure and decision-making process to drive the best decisions in the shortest (appropriate) amount of time.
But before all that what is the end goal, desired state, or target and why?
1. Agree
2. Agree but I would rather it be an American monster we are trying to contain than something foreign.
3. If the Nazi's had gotten there first how would have German's responded? We only did it twice and that was enough for the US.
4. Agree except when you need to resource something quickly or are facing an acute existential threat - Need to read up on how ancient Greece/Rome picked Dictators in time of need and how that would look like in polycentric model.
5. How far are we humans interconnected? Does it span across borders/countries? Humans vs AI, America-AI vs Chinese/Russian/Etc-AI, and is there AI-Fallout that could spread like radioactive fallout or cause nuclear-winter type events?
6. If not the state then it is the mob/organized crime that will fill in the gaps.
7. Word.
Also for the millenials - the adults aren't coming you are the adults so act like the adult you wish had come.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2811333
I know I came in hot before but these easy-nukes have IRL consequences and there is evidence to support that even 1% population loss is an existential threat.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/3/25/23655082/ai-openai-gpt-4-safety-microsoft-facebook-meta
Is this a better article (still same author) with less distracting/polarizing but it still raises a lot of the same points?
AI doesn't even have to be dangerous itself it just has to confuse enough humans that then go on to make bad decision based on the information they are being exposed to thanks to AI.
That to me is the mini-nuclear issue with AI, while not as an acute/drastic as an explosion the effects are insidious and largely ignored IMO.
If AI disinformation is able to cause democratic governance to grind to a halt, are corporations any better at insulating themselves from outsider interreference and if so at what cost?
This is addressed in the essay. Technorealism acknowleges the disruptive effects of technologies and is willing to deal with them pragmatically.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/04/1080801/generative-ai-boosting-disinformation-and-propaganda-freedom-house/
Are these mini-nukes yes or no?
I’m getting turned off by your approach to commenting. To answer you one final time, these are risks that should be taken seriously. I would not categorize them as existential but they could be systemic and should be taken seriously based on evidence.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/107329
As an outsider to AI this is what/why I worry about AI - for the medical field the easy-nukes have been around since COVID and solutions remain elusive. I apologize if my style is off putting. I'll see myself out now.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/3/7/23618766/peter-thiel-existential-risk-oxford-union-silicon-valley-technology-artficial-intelligence
Also would love a discussion on this article - I agree that I don’t believe libertarianism can solve existential problems (if anything it only creates them). Not trying to create conflict but healthy discussion.
The state is a useful foil but much like a parent once they are gone life becomes exponentially more real and difficult.
Our Technorealism article isn't about Peter Thiel or his views, so I am not going to address the Vox article's argument even though it is a straw man. It doesn't pertain to this article. Technorealism explicitly recognizes the state as necessary and something that cannot be ignored. It also recognizes collective action to address risks as they arise.
Fair.
Was not trying to make it about Theil, they are just a reference point for the collective vs individual response to existential threats.
It speaks to the collective vs individual concentration of power which is needed to respond to existential threats - which can be internal and external.
I agree with the concepts of techno-realism as presented in your article - seems like the most viable philosophy I am seeing.
I feel like there is a knowledge/logic chasm here that I am trying to bridge but am failing to understand or connect.