←back to thread

Playing in the Creek

(www.hgreer.com)
346 points c1ccccc1 | 1 comments | 11 Apr 25 05:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
MrBuddyCasino ◴[11 Apr 25 08:25 UTC] No.43651572[source]▶
That was a well written essay with a non-sequitur AI Safety thing tacked to the end. His real world examples were concrete, and the reason to stop escalating easy to understand ("don't flood the neighbourhood by building a real dam").

The AI angle is not only even hypothetical: there is no attempt to describe or reason about a concrete "x leading to y", just "see, the same principle probably extrapolates".

There is no argument there that is sounder than "the high velocities of steam locomotives might kill you" that people made 200 years ago.

replies(2): >>43651756 #>>43652038 #
1. iNic ◴[11 Apr 25 09:28 UTC] No.43652038[source]▶
The progress-care trade-off is a difficult one to navigate, and is clearly more important with AI. I've seen people draw analogies to companies, which have often caused harm in pursuit of greater profits, both purposefully and simply as byproducts: oil-spills, overmedication, pollution, ecological damage, bad labor conditions, hazardous materials, mass lead poisoning. Of course, the profit seeking company as an invention has been one of the best humans have ever made, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take "corp safety" seriously. We pass various laws on how corps can operate and what they can and can not do to limit harms and _align_ them with the goals of society.

So it is with AI. Except, corps are made of people that work on people speeds, and have vague morals and are tied to society in ways AI might not be. AI might also be able to operate faster and with less error. So extra care is required.