Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and 1,000 other tech leaders call for pause on AI development which poses a 'profound risk to society and humanity'

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 19:02
VIEWED: 1994
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 31, 2023 2:15 AM

Scott needs to shut the fuck up and sit down.

--------------------------------------------------

Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 31, 2023 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally plagiarized by SECOND

So, one idea that people have had—this is actually Yudkowsky’s term—is “Coherent Extrapolated Volition.” This basically means that you’d tell the AI: “I’ve given you all this training data about human morality in the year 2022. Now simulate the humans being in a discussion seminar for 10,000 years, trying to refine all of their moral intuitions, and whatever you predict they’d end up with, those should be your values right now.”

There have already been some demonstrations of this principle: with GPT, for example, you can just feed in a lot of raw data from a neural net and say, “explain to me what this is doing.” One of GPT’s big advantages over humans is its unlimited patience for tedium, so it can just go through all of the data and give you useful hypotheses about what’s going on.

Yep! And just look at what a clusterfuck Chat GPT turned into.

One problem with machine learning is that, unlike human behavior, it's not corraled by reality. Human behavior can only go so far before we get smacked by consequences. AI behaves like "ideologically possessed" people.

Also, there are innate social instincts in most people. (SECOND seems to lack them, which might be why he aligns with AI.)

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 31, 2023 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also, there are innate social instincts in most people. (SECOND seems to lack them, which might be why he aligns with AI.)

I've had more interesting dialog with NPCs coded by Bethesda in the mid-aughts.

--------------------------------------------------

Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.

SECOND

Friday, March 31, 2023 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Scott needs to shut the fuck up and sit down.

. . . no matter what AI safety proposal anyone comes up with, Eliezer has ready a completely general counterargument. Namely: “yes, but the AI will be smarter than that.” In other words, no matter what you try to do to make AI safer—interpretability, backdoors, sandboxing, you name it—the AI will have already foreseen it, and will have devised a countermeasure that your primate brain can’t even conceive of because it’s that much smarter than you.

I confess that, after seeing enough examples of this “fully general counterargument,” at some point I’m like, “OK, what game are we even playing anymore?” If this is just a general refutation to any safety measure, then I suppose that yes, by hypothesis, we’re screwed. Yes, in a world where this counterargument is valid, we might as well give up and try to enjoy the time we have left.

But you could also say: for that very reason, it seems more useful to make the methodological assumption that we’re not in that world! If we were, then what could we do, right? So we might as well focus on the possible futures where AI emerges a little more gradually, where we have time to see how it’s going, learn from experience, improve our understanding, correct as we go—in other words, the things that have always been the prerequisites to scientific progress, and that have luckily always obtained, even if philosophically we never really had any right to expect them. We might as well focus on the worlds where, for example, before we get an AI that successfully plots to kill all humans in a matter of seconds, we’ll probably first get an AI that tries to kill all humans but is really inept at it. Now fortunately, I personally also regard the latter scenarios as the more plausible ones anyway. But even if you didn’t—again, methodologically, it seems to me that it’d still make sense to focus on them.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6823

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Friday, March 31, 2023 5:58 PM

Why Elon Musk Is Trying to Convince Everyone That A.I. Is Evil

Elon Musk Is the A.I. Threat

The Tesla CEO called for a pause in chatbot development. But he’s pushing something much more dangerous.

For much of the past decade, Elon Musk has regularly voiced concerns about artificial intelligence, worrying that the technology could advance so rapidly that it creates existential risks for humanity. Though seemingly unrelated to his job making electric vehicles and rockets, Musk’s A.I. Cassandra act has helped cultivate his image as a Silicon Valley seer, tapping into the science-fiction fantasies that lurk beneath so much of startup culture. Now, with A.I. taking center stage in the Valley’s endless carnival of hype, Musk has signed on to a letter urging a moratorium on advanced A.I. development until “we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable,” seemingly cementing his image as a force for responsibility amid high technology run amok.

Don’t be fooled. Existential risks are central to Elon Musk’s personal branding, with various Crichtonian scenarios underpinning his pitches for Tesla, SpaceX, and his computer-brain-interface company Neuralink. But not only are these companies’ humanitarian “missions” empty marketing narratives with no real bearing on how they are run, Tesla has created the most immediate—and lethal—“A.I. risk” facing humanity right now, in the form of its driving automation. By hyping the entirely theoretical existential risk supposedly presented by large language models (the kind of A.I. model used, for example, for ChatGPT), Musk is sidestepping the risks, and actual damage, that his own experiments with half-baked A.I. systems have created.

The key to Musk’s misdirection is humanity’s primal paranoia about machines. Because humans evolved beyond the control of gods and nature, overthrowing them and harnessing them to our wills, so too do we fear that our own creations will return the favor. That this archetypal suspicion has become a popular moral panic at this precise moment may or may not be justified, but it absolutely distracts us from the very real A.I. risk that Musk has already unleashed.

That risk isn’t an easy-to-point-to villain—a Skynet, a HAL—but rather a flavor of risk we are all too good at ignoring: the kind that requires our active participation. The fear should not be that A.I. surpasses us out of sheer intelligence, but that it dazzles us just enough to trust it, and by doing so we endanger ourselves and others. The risk is that A.I. lulls us into such complacency that we kill ourselves and others.

More at https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/elon-musk-chatgpt-openai-artifici
al-intelligence-tesla.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Friday, March 31, 2023 6:08 PM

How unbelievably realistic fake images could take over the internet

AI image generators like DALL-E and Midjourney are getting better and better at fooling us.

. . . while many leaders of the AI movement signing a letter from an effective altruism-linked nonprofit that urged a six-month moratorium on developing more advanced AI models is better than nothing, it’s also not legally compelling. Nor has it been signed by everyone in the industry.

This all assumes that most people care a lot about not being duped by deepfakes or other lies on the internet. If the past several years have taught us anything, it’s that, while a lot of people think fake news is a real issue, they often don’t care or don’t know how to check that what they’re consuming is real — especially when that information conforms to their beliefs. And there are people who are happy enough to take what they see at face value because they don’t have the time or perhaps the knowledge to question everything. As long as it comes from a trusted source, they will assume it’s true. Which is why it’s important that those trusted sources are able to do the work of vetting the information they distribute.

But there are also people who do care and see the potential damage that deepfakes that are indistinguishable from reality pose. The race is on to come up with some kind of solution to this problem before AI-generated images get good enough for it to be one. We don’t yet know who will win, but we have a pretty good idea of what we stand to lose.

Until then, if you see an image of Pope Francis strolling around Rome in Gucci jeans on Twitter, you might want to think twice before you hit retweet.

More at https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/3/30/23662292/ai-image-dalle-opena
i-midjourney-pope-jacket

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, March 31, 2023 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Scott needs to shut the fuck up and sit down.
. . . no matter what AI safety proposal anyone comes up with, Eliezer has ready a completely general counterargument. Namely: “yes, but the AI will be smarter than that.” In other words, no matter what you try to do to make AI safer—interpretability, backdoors, sandboxing, you name it—the AI will have already foreseen it, and will have devised a countermeasure that your primate brain can’t even conceive of because it’s that much smarter than you.

I confess that, after seeing enough examples of this “fully general counterargument,” at some point I’m like, “OK, what game are we even playing anymore?” If this is just a general refutation to any safety measure, then I suppose that yes, by hypothesis, we’re screwed. Yes, in a world where this counterargument is valid, we might as well give up and try to enjoy the time we have left.

But you could also say: for that very reason, it seems more useful to make the methodological assumption that we’re not in that world! If we were, then what could we do, right? So we might as well focus on the possible futures where AI emerges a little more gradually, where we have time to see how it’s going, learn from experience, improve our understanding, correct as we go—in other words, the things that have always been the prerequisites to scientific progress, and that have luckily always obtained, even if philosophically we never really had any right to expect them. We might as well focus on the worlds where, for example, before we get an AI that successfully plots to kill all humans in a matter of seconds, we’ll probably first get an AI that tries to kill all humans but is really inept at it. Now fortunately, I personally also regard the latter scenarios as the more plausible ones anyway. But even if you didn’t—again, methodologically, it seems to me that it’d still make sense to focus on them.

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6823

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Jesus Christ... We're not there yet.

But why even have conversations like this? Just shut it down before we do. If we REALLY need to have conversations like this than it's already too late.

And like I said, I'm not even making an end of the world argument. It's the half of an 8 Billion person population that won't have shit to do or money to buy anything before the end of the world that I'm worried about.

--------------------------------------------------

Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:02 PM

Sam Altman Speaks On Dead OpenAI Whistleblower Suchir Balaji

PREV PAGE 1 2