393
Bernie Sanders tells OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta to pause AI development or face Senate action (www.techspot.com)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

I don't like your insincerity with the fake apology, and I don't like the insincerity of refusing to back up your claims.

We can start with the simplest question, which I already asked: Do you consider Eliezer Yudkowsky to be one of your "experts"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I don't understand the question. Yudkowsky's book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.

    When I said "the experts" I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don't know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He's like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.

    When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies

    Interesting how you conflate "expert" with "employee" when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?

    And I asked you earlier about why these "experts" never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is... Do you think it hurts their bottom line?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I answered your non sequitur as a show of good faith. Your turn: what precisely is the stance you're arguing here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    That AI doomerism is AI marketing.

    Now I'm interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?

    And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Slow down, sir or ma'am. We'll get to your questions, I promise.

    What does "AI Doomerism" mean? I am not familiar with the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    https://ondiscourse.com/ai-doomerism-is-a-business-tactic/

    Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?

    And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don't need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn't a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We're just having a discussion. Breathe.

    That link didn't answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don't think AI actually works?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Calm down, there isn't a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We're just having a discussion. Breathe.

    You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You've repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you're telling them to calm down. I'm not even the person you're arguing with here and I'm getting mad lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago

    They are using the same playbook as antivaxxers. There's no way around the comparison. It wasn't meant as an insult, but as an observation. Notice they didn't correct me, but instead indicated that it hurt their feelings.

    I'm not arguing with anyone; they have not yet made a point that required more than a factual correction, or a point that was just a conspiracy theory.

    You definitely shouldn't get mad about it though, haha.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.

    I answered you twice, "in good faith" as you like to say, and it's clear that's something you're not here in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago

    You haven't answered my questions, hence why I still have questions. I promise you that, even if it's the last comment I make to you, I will answer your questions. They're not the gotcha you apparently believe them to be and are essentially a waste of time to answer, but they appear super important so I will get to them.

    First I want to understand your stance. All I've got now is that a blog said AI isn't actually dangerous, and you concur. Why do you think this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    @joe seems pretty clear to me.

    -"AI" isn't inevitable
    -people who claim otherwise are mostly doing marketing for products in which they're invested
    -experts on "AI" should include more than those employed by the companies trying to make a profit off it

    Yudkowsky was not a non sequitur; you were asked which experts you consult, you then refused to name any, so your interlocutor tried speculating about who might qualify for you.

    Hope this helps, Joe!

    @XLE

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent