you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 17 hours ago (14 children)

If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

    It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can "handle them". It's all about control and creating a monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    I believe there is truth in both sides of this argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 17 hours ago (7 children)

    Thankfully it's not so dangerous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago*

    ""I resigned from Anthropic today... Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt... many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately."

    Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI

    "Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to."

    Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

    This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they'd still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.

    Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 hours ago* (3 children)

    You and I are the only ones apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago* (2 children)

    LLMs entering the world have revealed two very different types of crazies and I'm starting to think they're everywhere. It's quite tiring to have to constantly say "no they're not useless" and "no they're not super god" instead of engage with an actually interesting discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

    I don't really understand why lemmy thinks what it thinks on this one. To me it's undeniable that it's improving fast and it's capable today of replacing a great many current job roles. Putting our heads in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    Right, and regardless of sci-fi future potentials, there is a current reality and we're in it and only have so much time to affect it's evolution. All of these likely intelligent people completely ignoring reality isn't helping define and construct the world we want tomorrow.

  • source
  • parent