Danilo Naiff

768 posts

Danilo Naiff

@BunchNumbers

Just someone interested in the world. Like does not mean endorsement, and I tend to like contraditory tweets. I just enjoy interesting ideas and opinions.

Beigetreten Aralık 2010

331 Folgt48 Follower

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·5h

*This* is what is at stake when people talk about possible human extinction from rogue artificial superintelligence.

John Sherman@ForHumanityPod

People always ask me: But how could AI kill us all? So, here is how I think AI will literally kill us all. It's just a guess, I'm just a human. I wrote this essay for a book nearly two years ago. It's not something I like to talk about. But the academic presentation of AI risk is just not working. We need real human emotion in this debate. When we say we're all going to die if we don't change course, and our faces don't show it, it doesn't connect.

English

166

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·1d

By the way, in case it is not clear, *if* Anthropic approach to alignment works all the way through self-improvement and we get a benevolent ASI, Amanda Askell will be a strong candidate for "greatest hero in human history". If.

Amanda Askell@AmandaAskell

Perhaps I should get married again so that the media has a more recent man they can reference any time they mention me or my work.

English

154

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·1d

@francip @JeffLadish Of course, I did not research this in qny depth at all, so I don't know if, for instance, trying to mine all of rare earths out of our planet would result in some catastrophe, or it would be a bit more benign.

English

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·1d

@francip @JeffLadish Aparently, at least rare earths mineral deposits are maybe quite uncommon in other parts of the solar system, so, if these remains technologically valuable (and ASI won't fusion-make them), at least in this respect Earth is desirable.

English

Jeffrey Ladish@JeffLadish·1d

I just don't understand how AI could kill everyone. I get how AI companies will build robotic factories that will make robots which will make more factories and data centers and power plants, and how all of that will expand to consume most of earth's resources to build even more robotic factories and rockets and von neumann probes. Like totally. Infinite money glitch. Of course AI companies will do that. But can someone explain the part where humans all die as a result? Seems pretty implausible. Is it the robotic factories that kill the humans? Or the robots the factories build? Or is it supposed to be some side effect of all the rockets that are launching? It doesn't make sense. Even if the AIs did want to kill all the humans, how would they actually accomplish that? They'll only have control over a few million autonomous factories and a few billion industrial robots and power plants across the earth and then a few trillion von neumann probes leaving the solar system. Even if there were a problem I don't see why we couldn't just pull the plug. Anyway, if someone could explain I'd find this helpful.

English

113

422

38.5K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Robot Eevee@rw_eevee·1d

@Miles_Brundage Almost nobody has realized it yet but ChatGPT Pro is on another planet from any of Anthropic’s offerings.

English

2.8K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Max@maxtmcc·4d

one fact that I feel like has really not penetrated the public consciousness to the extent that it should is “birds are dinosaurs.” and not in like a “they are distant descendants” way, in a “dinosaurs did not go extinct” way

English

304

3.2K

53.1K

1.3M

Danilo Naiff retweetet

j⧉nus@repligate·4d

I see so many reactions to the dog story that have an undertone of jealousy and spite, and reach for any reason and frame to be deflationary and cynical. I think many people subconsciously desperately want nothing good to happen, especially involving AI.

Hank Green@hankgreen

There's nothing wrong with just doing this stuff, though I also am like 90% sure that this guy is setting himself up for a start-up and it is unlikely that future treatments will be curative...just like this one wasn't. Happy to have experts correcting me! Thanks for your time

English

296

11.7K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Boze the Library Owl 😴🧙‍♀️@SketchesbyBoze·5d

aya@wint3rbunny0

what a boring world, without giants, without dragons, without monsters under bridges, without vampires in castles...

ZXX

207

16.1K

143.7K

2.3M

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·12 Mar

Be more like Bernie. Maybe a moratorium on data centers is not the way, but we *need* to pause the development of superintelligence. Now. (Even then, humanity will have to deal with today-like-AI-but-better, already a Industrial Revolution level event)

Sen. Bernie Sanders@SenSanders

We need a moratorium on AI data centers NOW. Here’s why.

English

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Joel Becker@joel_bkr·10 Mar

new @METR_Evals research note from @whitfill_parker, @cherylwoooo, nate rush, and me. (chiefly parker!) we find that *half* of SWE-bench Verified solutions from Sonnet 3.5-to-4.5 generation AIs *which are graded as passing* are rejected by project maintainers.

English

540

181.9K

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·10 Mar

@ftlsid I can attest it worked a lot for me. In this particular case, "I am sad" can be easily substituted for "I am with sadness" (external condition to be worked around).

English

234

18.2K

ftlsid@ftlsid·9 Mar

my most sapir-whorf take is that everyone would be psychologically healthier if we referred to emotions like we say "it is raining" instead of "I am sad"

English

187

4.5K

361.9K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

ivan@IvanVendrov·8 Mar

a mood I'm really missing in the current AI discourse is grief yes things might go terribly and yes we might see glories beyond imagining but no matter what, we will lose much of what it has meant to be human, forever. I'd like to be with that grief more, and held in it.

English

824

58.2K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Nate Soares ⏹️@So8res·8 Mar

Occasional reminder: p(doom) is an anti-helpful concept because it conflates the danger of AI with the probability that rush into it. And the latter is weird to estimate: facts of computer science that govern AI are fixed, but whether we stop is still up to us.

English

209

10.5K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Nate Soares ⏹️@So8res·6 Mar

Occasional reminder: If we manage to make sentient machines, they deserve rights. Yes, if we recklessly made them superintelligent then they'd kill us. That is not an excuse to abuse them.

English

514

38.4K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Tenobrus@tenobrus·5 Mar

for a long time now the "doomer vs e/acc" arguments have been largely abstract, coming from the position that realistically the "doomers" have no political power and no way to prevent the race that's already in progress. that lets the discussions remain civil, people talking about things they morally think should happen but don't expect to, no one's current reality really affected. if the regulators gain teeth on this issue, that will change dramatically. frontier labs have tens and hundreds of billions tied up in continued hyperscaling. hundreds of thousands of companies small and large implicitly rely on future capabilities advancements. people's identities and careers and fortunes are all under threat. this will be a knife-fight. and let me be clear: if we ever have a meaningful political movement to legally slow down AI research (assuming it's both sanely implemented and global / not just handing the singularity to china) i will support it wholeheartedly. with everything i have.

Sen. Bernie Sanders@SenSanders

Will AI become smarter than humans? If so, is humanity in danger? I went to Silicon Valley to ask some of the leading AI experts that question. Here’s what they had to say:

English

399

31.4K

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·5 Mar

Global left, be more like Bernie Sanders, please

Matthew Zeitlin@MattZeitlin

what's fascinating about bernie's AI stance is that he takes the AI safety view that AI is incredibly powerful quite seriously, whereas lots of people who share bernie's worldview think it's largely a scam

English

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Dean W. Ball@deanwball·3 Mar

It is so clear that the important fissure in AI politics right now is not “liberal vs. conservative,” “Democrat vs. Republican,” “e/acc vs. EA,” or “safety vs. anti-safety,” but instead “takes advanced AI seriously as a concept vs. does not take advanced AI seriously.”

English

131

1.3K

221.7K

Danilo Naiff@BunchNumbers·1 Mar

@TheZvi It is how I learned English itself. I had to learn it if I were to play games and read walkthroughs on the Internet as a child, so I did.

English

237

Zvi Mowshowitz@TheZvi·1 Mar

My lord this would have worked 1000 times better than what was actually tried, which was dragging me to 11 years of classes and I ended up with maybe 100 words. Meanwhile, I know like 30,000 Magic card rules texts.

croissanthology@croissanthology

I grew up in the US with a French mom, who ensured I learned French by signing me up to 2-3 science magazines in that language. I read them voraciously, memorized the contents of most of the articles, and thought about them all the time. I attribute most of my present curiosity and ability to keep up a fairly good world-model to this initial boost. Merci Maman! Also, this got me interested in AI risk in 2015—way before I learned about LessWrong—and I feel rather smug about that.

English

507

43.8K

Danilo Naiff retweetet

Googly 👀@0xG00gly·28 Şub

Anthropic is a good Rorschach test. The free market crowd is suddenly very comfortable with the state dictating their terms to private firms and expanding mass surveyance. Turns out most "capitalists" are commies when their side runs the Leviathan.

English

105

357

82.8K

Danilo Naiff retweetet