Michael Hay 🇬🇧 ⏸️

@7seventhseth7 x.com/i/status/14911…

Nice For What - Cloud SSBU Montage

@JoinTorchbearer @NPCollapse @romanyam Very grateful for the efforts of everyone who has helped raise awareness of this issue.

"This is not the will of the people. This is not what I or the general public here in America, or abroad, want." Connor Leahy (@NPCollapse), speaking with @romanyam, on why the development of superintelligence is a grave national security risk that demands government action now.

@FireThePyro FF music gets copyright flagged on YouTube which could be a problem :(

MIDGAR CLAUSE WOO YEAH WOO

@Sparg0ssb You absolutely cooked goat

So close 😭😭 but I can’t be too mad at myself 3rd place at Kagaribi 15!! I wanted to win but still I’m super proud of my performance, I felt mind blocked all year but I didn’t want to give up, I prepared so much for this tournament and I’m so happy to know I can still win ! Thank you everyone 🥹❤️

@CoughsOnWombats "More" invites the question "more than what/when?", "More and more" clearly means increasing over time to this day. Not saying that makes sense really but it is my intuition and probably that of other readers too.

Trying to think of legitimate uses and drawing a blank. "More" is fine, there are often good reasons to focus on things increasing. To justify the second "more", you need some additional increase that doesn't just get folded into the first increase being bigger.

@Sparg0ssb Let's go king!

I made top 24 Winners side without dropping a single game, beat Shinda Lion, Ataru, 33PeranBox and Carmelo. I play Leo for top 8 tomorrow

@JerusalemDemsas youtu.be/uGkLjfPWqeI?si…

many such cases

@AndyMasley Bezos likes to ask "what will still be true in 5-10 years time?" to inform what to invest in. Unfortunately for AI reasonable estimates include total human disempowerment/extinction, so it is genuinely very hard to know what skills will be useful, if any!

I don't believe at all that people need to "use AI because otherwise they'll fall behind on it." Capabilities are moving so fast that we'll all be novices in 3 years regardless of what we're doing now. My poking around GPT-3 papers gave me basically no leg up on actually using AI compared to people who just dove straight into coding agents.

The existential risk of artificial intelligence.

@kevinlotto Just listened to Tristan Harris on the Sam Harris podcast. He says part of the problem is the perceived inevitability of ASI, meaning developers don't feel morally to blame for building it. All the more reason to establish a credible path to a global ban!

The development of superintelligence is only a race from the perspective of the for-profit AI companies because they seem to believe they can win. However, if they achieve their goal, they & everyone else actually lose. We are not ready, and may never be, for superintelligence.

Control AI's done great work in the UK. Here's hoping for similar success elsewhere!

@DrZionist @CoreyWriting I don't dispute that. Regardless it's important to correct false claims.

@MikeFHay @CoreyWriting This is considered normal wartime population decline during wars. Sorry.

Gaza is the only place where the overall population can increase, where 70% of casualties are combat-aged males, where the opposition sends in hundreds of humanitarian aid trucks, and there's still apparently "genocide" occurring.

@aedison Not sure what threat model would call for more than 12 characters for this. You're not securing against billions of guesses, the answer isn't even hashed.

just got a security call from my bank and had to answer a real human being asking me “what was the name of your first childhood pet?” with a 64-character alphanumeric password. I apologized eight separate times

Is it possible to coordinate with China on AI governance? Critics of our proposed international agreement say no. But statements from Chinese government officials and academic figures paint a more optimistic picture:

@xwanyex Congratulations!

@cafreiman No they didn't? The article cites many experts and industry leaders warning of AI dangers that are not at all analogous to mechanised agriculture.

“70% think mechanized agriculture will lead to fewer jobs.”

@Grimezsz @robinhanson @Aella_Girl @DoomDebates is trying to fix this

I didn’t see the doc yet - but I do think the best “don’t panic” people don’t rly do interviews because most of the best arguments against doomers (who I think are very logical except with regards to their own branding) essentially come down to opinions on the nature of life that the vast majority of people will not like or be ok with. Like I’ve had people make very strong arguments to me about why zero care should be spent addressing doomer concerns and it basically comes down to things like human life isn’t particularly special in the context of intelligence, or the philosophies of the people building ai are based on such and such superior cultural approach that I trust more than the current one etc etc obviously that’s extremely basic but - I think the reason we don’t hear these arguments in public is because they tend to end up being lik well a bunch of ppl r gna be poor in the short term and it’ll be awful and it’s gna be a bad bottleneck time or the cybernetic system deserves priority over individuals hence a certain amount of suffering death and merging and possibly even extinction is ok I don’t see these types of arguments ever risking being subjected to actual debate or rigor from the opposition. It’s pretty crazy there aren’t more well documented well planned earnest formal debates between the best doomers and the best optimists with fact checking - and mebe it’s not a totally formal debate cuz I want people to debate their side and I want optimists to have to stand up to the most meticulous scrutiny and if it still stands then awesome, Same for doomers idk It’s insane that it never actually comes down to being person v person. There’s almost no reason to do any more docs or have any more discussions if we can’t do that because it’s just ppl yelling unchallenged arguments back and forth This is too long sorry

Just saw the AI doc and came away pissed at the optimists. I sort of expected them to have any argument that actually addressed the x-risk side, but they were basically like 'historically tech is good, people have been worried before but it was fine!' They didn't address at ALL the extremely entry-level concerns of like 'building something smarter than us is a categorically new type of threat'. They just repeated that tech would help humanity. It's especially infuriating cause the most lifelong techno optimists I know ARE the doomers. The x-risk community are the ones who grew up on epic sci-fi fiction and have thought long and hard about what the singularity might bring. One of my friends (who was in the doc) once spent all night carrying ice into a hospital room to preserve the corpse of his friend in a desperate attempt to get him into a cryonics lab. It's real for them! But "AI has promise" is not even close to an adequate response to the extinction threat on the table. Even the AI CEOs in the movie - the ones that are *actually* doing the most acceleration - seemed to at least understand the gravity of the arguments they were engaging with. The optimists in the doc seemed to have domain expertise in their technical fields, but were amateurs. They both are insufficiently visionary and also fail to engage with the actual risk in a practical way. I think they pattern match the "ai might kill us" people onto general woke anti-tech movement, and shout against them from a place of ego. That's the only good explanation I can think of for why they must be beating an activist drum that's so damn empty.

@justinpoir @ramez I'd be interested in hearing this in more specifics and detail. That's what people have been expressing, but you've chosen to instead respond that you don't have the burden of proof!

@MikeFHay @ramez The particularly extraordinary claims have not convinced me at all and all seem to skip steps or make assumptions that can't be backed up by evidence. In some cases they assume something as known which I think is not just unknown but unknowable.

The onus of doom prediction arguments being on the not doomers doesn't make sense. Not doom is the default. Doom is the has always been wrong historically prediction. This time is different? Ok prove it but not with assigning a vibes based doom number.

@justinpoir @ramez You're saying that the warnings of many experts, Nobel prize winners and leaders in the field, including detailed arguments can be simply ignored? That seems an extraordinarily high burden of proof.

@MikeFHay @ramez I'm not claiming they aren't making an argument, I was responding to recent claims that the non-doomers "have no argument" which I think is both untrue and also goes against who has the burden of proof here