This is a completely reasonable and intuitive conclusion. The burden of proof rests on proving AI's are indeed conscious, the default is that they aren't.
Like AI/LLMS my desktop calculator is also not conscious, even as it is far better than me at computation.
An LLM is an algorithm. You can obtain the same result as a SOTA LLM via pen and paper it will take a lot of long laborious effort.
I really do find it puzzling so many on HN are convinced LLM's reason or think and continue to entertain this line of reasoning. At the same time also somehow knowing what precisely the brain/mind does and constantly using CS language to provide correspondences where there are none.
The simplest example being that LLM's somehow function in a similar fashion to human brains. They categorically do not. I do not have most all of human literary output in my head and yet I can coherently write this sentence.
I am surprised so many in the HN community have so quickly taken to assuming as fact that LLM's think or reason. Even anthropomorphising LLM's to this end.
He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless, backup your sentiment with actions.
Also everyone, collectively, stop thinking about neural networks too 'hard'. Whilst you're at it stop doing maths too!
That's reductive. Without coordinated cooperation, enough actors will defect so game theory plus market forces will force acceleration on the frontier overall.
He doesn't need anyones permission to do so, go ahead no one is stopping you! If you feel so strongly about it, lead by example. Perhaps others will follow, maybe even China. Regardless backup your sentiment with actions!
There is a specific, unilateral action that he is taking described in the article.
And the "why are they developing AI if they think it's so dangerous" argument is neither new nor persuasive. They're developing it because (1) they think the potential benefits are as great as the potential risks, and they know that if they aren't one of the actors on the frontier (2) they won't be able to propose meaningful solutions and (3) their opinions won't be taken seriously. Amodei is in rooms with powerful people to propose these things because Anthropic is successfully developing frontier models. The heads of various NGOs and advocacy groups that are concerned with AI safety but not themselves working on those systems are... nowhere, writing pamphlets and blogs that not you nor I nor anyone in Congress will ever read.
I mean, he is right that they can and should unilaterally slow down, but doesn't it also make sense for the government to create the regulations that will make this easier to do in a trustless way?
The whole point of the Pacing the Frontier letter was that employees at both OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely aware of the risks but realize that they are locked in a competitive battle for survival between 2 companies that don't trust each other enough to voluntarily pause, while any sort of coordination out in the open might be against antitrust laws.
> but doesn't it also make sense for the government to create the regulations that will make this easier to do in a trustless way?
That's a premise, which is the point. Many (I) think the government should NOT enact regulations. For example regulatory capture to reducing competition is one reason it may not be a good idea to do what is being asked.
The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Things that give them meaning and many of these are tied to earning money and producing value for doing just that thing.
Software/coding is once of these activities. One can do coding for fun but doing the same coding whilst at the same it providing value to others/society and financial upkeep for you and your family is far more meaningful.
For those who have swallowed the AI panacea hook line and sinker. Those that say it's made me more productive or that I no longer have to do the boring bits and can focus on the interesting parts of coding. I say follow your own line of reasoning through. It demonstrates that AI is not yet powerful enough to NOT need to empower you, to NOT need to make you more productive. You're only ALLOWED to do the 'interesting' parts presently because the AI is deficient. Ultimately AI aims to remove the need for any human intermediary altogether (or for humans to provide intent only). Everything in between is just a stop along the way and so for those it empowers stop and think a little about the long term implications. It may be that for you right now, it is a comfortable position financially or socially but the future you in just a few short months from now may be dramatically impacted.
As someone said "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes".
> The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Things that give them meaning and many of these are tied to earning money and producing value for doing just that thing. Software/coding is once of these activities. One can do coding for fun but doing the same coding whilst at the same it providing value to others/society and financial upkeep for you and your family is far more meaningful.
What did we say to people that wanted to be in data entry, bookkeeping, search, write CSS all day, write assemblies all day, etc etc? As an industry we have been trying to remove as much work as possible via automation. We got what we asked for.
Humans still compete playing chess, sprinting etc. even though machines are vastly superior to humans. Real artists can’t not do art. They do it for the pleasure of doing it. Not to compete with other humans or machines. And there will be artists who will use AI to create mind blowing new types of art that would have been impossible before. I can’t wait to see how humans will use this powerful new tool for creativity.
Your point is a tautology. The actual point being made is about changing circumstances affecting large swathes of society which may mean an increased possibility of worsening circumstances for said humans. Not that it will mean humans are no longer able to do programming.
Do what makes you happy? Comment's like these ignore the reality of life for the vast majority of people. Being 'free' enough to say that is a very privileged position to be in. But do take a care and consider others less fortunate.
People have to earn a living, most people can't do what makes them happy and earn a living. In fact ones free time where one lives the very rhythms and patterns of life are dictated most often by your job or your ability to obtain one.
The core issue is that AI is taking away, or will take away, or threatens to take away, experiences and activities that humans would WANT to do. Things that give them meaning AND are tied to earning money at the SAME time.
One can do math for fun but doing the same math where it provides value to others/society and financial upkeep for you and your family is meaningful too and often sought after.
Alarming normalisation. Issues I see off the top of my head:
- Governments can now learn even more about you when they confiscate your device.
- Devices confiscated at airports provide a full history of you.
- Privacy issues: will my conversation with someone using this tech truly be private? Do I have to be careful what I say around everyone by default? Always have clear thought out opinions?
- Personal relations: spouses, friends, relatives demanding to see your history to check up on you and what you've been 'thinking'?
- Society where nothing can be assumed to be private by default
- Slippery slope to a future where you have always on location, cameras, mics for everyone with a mobile device. A complete reshaping of society. Therefore being unable to count on previous societal norms
He is lamenting the tech in a similar manner to lamenting social media. Social media is also 'tech', and yet I don't think we could poor quite enough scorn on it, it deserves more!
I understand the qualities of LLM's but I do fear that we might lose much which once lost may be gone forever. That gives me pause for thought.
This is a completely reasonable and intuitive conclusion. The burden of proof rests on proving AI's are indeed conscious, the default is that they aren't.
Like AI/LLMS my desktop calculator is also not conscious, even as it is far better than me at computation.
An LLM is an algorithm. You can obtain the same result as a SOTA LLM via pen and paper it will take a lot of long laborious effort.
I really do find it puzzling so many on HN are convinced LLM's reason or think and continue to entertain this line of reasoning. At the same time also somehow knowing what precisely the brain/mind does and constantly using CS language to provide correspondences where there are none.
The simplest example being that LLM's somehow function in a similar fashion to human brains. They categorically do not. I do not have most all of human literary output in my head and yet I can coherently write this sentence.
I am surprised so many in the HN community have so quickly taken to assuming as fact that LLM's think or reason. Even anthropomorphising LLM's to this end.
reply