Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "Hackers expose deep cybersecurity vulnerabilities in AI | BBC News" video.
-
He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, the host.
By contrast, Connor knows what he's talking about, but his bias is entirely skewed to the unlikely worst case imaginable and suggests that since he's wealthy and comfortable and doesn't need AI to substantially improve the education of his kids or his own prosperity / productivity, that we should be scared enough to all stay suffering to ensure his protection from algebraic lambda functions.
I don't think either men realize how little sense they are making when real people are at stake, not just their own comfortable lives being threatened by people who fear destitution and opportunity more than they fear poor people competing economically with their luxurious selves.
Not differentiating real from fake would benefit everyone. We'd be forced to all apply critical thinking by default instead of trusting talking heads. It would force people to be informed by logic, cross referencing, consensus, and by reading well vetted authors. It wouldn't force everyone to never believe anything ever again as this whole panel suggests, it's far more likely to do the opposite when common knowledge is to be suspicious and critical of everything. That's healthy, that's not "thinking based on feelings" it's thinking based on thinking - which we're not doing.
The singularity is not a thing unless you're taking about either end of the universe. Computers are not doing "2 years of thinking per day", they don't think they associate tokens in matrices. Humans have agency by way of the senses coalescing, and we're fragile because we die when some of those senses stop working by consequence. If a machine developed agency but couldn't die from impaired senses then it wouldn't really be conscious or self aware without ever having any appreciation for its own death.
Connor Leahy knows how these systems work, he knows the code and the math right down to the assembly, probably. His fear is that 0.000001% chance of catastrophe isn't worth the risk to his great life, so everyone else should just suck it up and stop being so loose with our models. Poor people could leverage those models and lift the world to a new minimum standard but that tiny % risk isn't worth it to him and 10% of the rest of the world if it means not only AI threatens his comfortable life, but lifting the poor to compete for his wealth is the even greater threat.
Don't get me wrong, I lime the guy, he's not evil, he's not crazy, he's a father. He's a guy who sincerely wants good in the world but clearly doesn't even recognize how little sense he makes when he speaks about the risks. He's been on mlst a tonne of times and I listen to every episode because there's a lot to learn from him, lots of insight and perspective, and most importantly he sets a great example for discourse with differing views; it seems pretty clear over the years his strongest argument is a preference to preserve the status quo, and not many people on earth would think that's an acceptable reason to keep them trapped in exploited labour their entire lives.
A lot of people suffer and can't defend themselves for lack of education or tutoring, adequate language skill or stimulating dialog by virtue of the world they inherited through no fault of their own. It's not our fault either, except it is if there's a tool that would certainly help a healthy percentage of that population and compounding over time. If we withhold access to AI then it is our fault because suddenly we decided for them it wasn't worth the risk. They ought to just sacrifice themselves for the West (the least in need and most capable of defending themselves again an Ai-mageddon.
Indeed far more people are not well off than who are, so to suggested his fear of protecting his civilized life merits closing that door to the many millions of times more people who would at least have the option to work hard to catch up with him is patently selfish and logically asinine for a man of his dignified belief systems - unless he's just a man blinded by love. That would be completely understandable but not in the least bit justified.
TLDR, this whole conversation is a red herring to distract from license agreements, patent farming, privacy, rentseeking enterprise, and corruption of politics. This is the Houdini act, misdirection and pearl-clutching, while the bank robbers keep an unbroken congo-line strong carrying the future's wealth out the door in broad daylight.
4
-
1