u/twotime

> would be putting open ai and anthropic out of business selling something you could install on a laptop

Agents are simple and can run on a laptop.. An advanced LLM can not.

And even then the hard part is not running LLM, the hard part is *training* it. THAT requires enormous resources and know-how.

But simpler LLMs (which would match "frontier" llms of ~2-3 years ago) can absolutely be run on a maxed-out home computer. But would still require DC-scale resources to be trained (if anyone wanted to train from scratch)

May I suggest you spend some time reading about this tech before trying to form an opinion. Here. My good deed for today.

> Agents can't be "leaked into the wild"

Uh, "agents" can run on your laptop. A swarm of agents can run on your laptop if needed.

It's the brains, the LLM itself which needs big hardware. But you only need a single instance to "lead" a swarm of agents..

And even LLMs hardware requirements are not that exotic. Amazon/Google/etc have likely tens of thousand boxes available for general use which could in host a frontier LLM.

Smaller LLMs can run on a maxed out home PC.

Was "critical"? That is interesting way to put it. As in spread a cloud of utter lies? And openly pressured a governor of Georgia to "find" him votes

> where he explicitly said to be peaceful

He also said, go-and-fight-as-hell. His supporters heard that and clearly missed the "peaceful" part.

What's FAR worse, look at the most basic timeline. The take-over of the capitol lasted for a few hours. For these few hours, Trump could have easily went public and screamed at his supporters to stop. He did not. The only possible interpretation is that he fully liked what was happenning.

And then he did stated publicly that it was a festival of love or something like that and pardoned everyone

Sorry, but your position contradict EVERYTHING.

PS. In fact, 5 months before elections Trump DID openly say that he will not accept his defeat. So either he is honest, and then he-did-what-he-originally-wanted to do. Or he is an utter liar and then all election irregularities existed only in his own imagination. OR BOTH as the case happens to be

I wish he were a pawn of Mossad. I am afraid Mossad is at most his 2nd employer, his 1st employer is sitting in Moscow.

This is not guaranteed to work and mucking with birth rates may be too slow

In general, it'd be impossible to judge rationale for superintelligence.

But here is a couple of "human" level arguments:

1. It may view us as a waste of useful resources (which are better spend on whatever AI thinks would be better for AI)
2. It may view us as a threat
3. Or, humans might just be a somewhat unintentional collateral damage to achieve something else (e.g 2 AIs fighting with each other)

Yeah, while reducing the number of tax-brackets helps, the real simplicity benefit comes from having a single tax bracket. (Which would allow many simplifications across the board, e.g dual-income families can actually be taxed accurately during the year)

Inflation adjustment is only needed for the per-head exemption. Tax rates do not need adjustment (unless there is a massive inflation spike, like 10% annual)

Define "smarter". The thing is that in 99.999% of cases the only meaningful definition of "smarter" is "can solve more problems" or can solve-problems-faster. And "more efficient" in this context will absolutely translate into both of these.

So, yes, smarter for almost any practical purpose

> any reason or triggering event as to why AI would wipe us out.

That's an easy question to answer:

* AI may view us a threat to its own existence (or a draw on resources which could be used for AI's purpose)
* We might be just a collateral damage to achieve another goal

But it gets worse, in addition to AI going rogue, I'd be just as concerned about human actors using AI for destructive purposes.

> Formally proven hardware and software doesn't permit them to "hack the system".

I don't think we are even *remotely* close. In fact,we'd probably need to replace the vast majority of anything-which-has-wifi-connectivity which is currently in use.

And then, what do you do about human mistakes, even the most secure software can be compromised by bad configuration or weak passwords, exposed credentials or just mistakes.

> it is not going to be able to make nanotechnology or hack the nuclear plants or upload itself everywhere

Not sure about creating "nano" technology, but hacking into the nuclear plants is absolutely within realm of possible. (At the very least via physical world bribery). And, "uploading" is simpler still. (uploading LLM might be somewhat complicated, but spreading agent swarms are trivial)

And, if necessary it could always, just pay humans to do AI bidding.

Money is fairly easy to translate into power in the physical world

I get what you are saying, but really, it greatly depends on specifics.

France is in deep economic crisis. Violent/destructive protests just further SHRINK the economy, which results in more protests which further shrinks the economy, drives up prices. And it goes on, until ultra-right win.

PS. and protesting over "rising prices" is borderline stupid and smells heavily of foreign attempts to destabilize France

My friend, you posted no evidence whatsoever either. Mine is at least a self-contained logical argument which you did not care to address. Great take /s

As for statistics: go and ask google about "false rape accusation", you get numbers from 2-10%. Wikipedia says 5% with further references. Which sounds high enough to me

What's far worse how, even in principle, a false accusation can be determined? You have two people saying two different things. Typically zero witnesses/physical evidence. So no statistics would be able to determine the real incidence... So.. if "known" false rate is 5% then real false rate is certain to be much bigger.

PS. I do realize that this also makes true rape accusations far harder to prove, but that's a separate discussion

But common sense does. A sexual assault accusation is by far the easiest way for a woman to use as a blackmail or a revenge tool against a man. [1]

Most other false charges are far harder to make for numerous and fairly obvious reasons

It follows then that false accusations for sex assault MUST be far more common than any other false accusations.

[1] Even if the lawsuit/criminal investigation does not go anywhere, the target will incur massive costs

> extending the same concept even further, you could have the losing party always liable for attorney's fees on the other side of the lawsuit.

I believe the defendant-is-compensated-for-legal-expenses-if-he-wins is a standard practice in every country which was a part of the British empire (UK, Canada, Australia). So this idea is not radical at all.

Keep-the-projected-balance-positive-over-30-years feels like a totally trivial requirement to me. It'd be interesting to know how many HOAs would that materially affect.

> Thats pretty much exactly what we have now. You can live on benefits a

Not sure where you live, but in US you will not get benefits unless you are disabled or old or very young. And if you do get them, they will be at/under poverty level.

>If UBI gives you a great house, a great car, abundance of food and clothing

It will not, not in the next 100 years or so.

> Thats why I say either everyone will work (like today) or no one will.

a. there is plenty of middle ground between no-benefits (or poverty-level benefits) and "a great house and a great car"

b. I think the primary assumptoin is that there won't be enough jobs. Even in principle

Venus style runaway warming is considered generally impossible. Earth does not have enough carbon.

Also, Venus is like +300C warmer than Earth, Ice age is like -6C colder than current average. So they are simply incomparable

A much better question what is better/worse: 6C warming or 6C cooling? I'd expect that 2C cooling is better than 2C warming. I'm less sure about 6C.

No you could not. Not sure about you, but somehow mass starvation and hundred millions dead is not appealing to my sense of beauty.

PS. also, Earth will continue to exist with or without population and would not care a tiny bit.

PPS. I do think that long-term population decline might be beneficial to *humans* but that has not relevant to the is cooling worth than warming question.

They did not discover pain. At MOST they have discovered some level of "similarity" between pain processes in living beings and digital transformations which happen in LLMs.

However, "similarity" is not a proof, it's not even a strong evidence in this case, just something to think about.

PS. personally, i don't think it's even a weak evidence

> If it's concern about LLMs going rogue terminator style then the chance is pretty close to 0.

Why is that? Misalignment happens, mistraining happens and capabilities are clearly there. Also,worth pointing out that "pretty close to zero" needs to be VERY close to zero when it comes to wiping out humanity.

> There's plenty of opportunity for people to misuse the tech though

ahem, yes. But that still is no justification for zero-concern: as we have just created a massively-dangerous tool and gave it to everyone.

Lecun might know more than Dario, But there are plenty of experts who take Dario's position: starting with Jeff Hinton and Yoshua Bengio

Besides, TBH, "zero concerns" sounds border-line, well, deluded to me from someone familiar with LLMs. Unless he is only concerned with a total extinction, but that's an idiotic threshold to use.

Sorry, but nothing adds up about Lecun's position

WHy is that? Yes, if you live on UBI you will get a worse housing/car/food/clothes. If you work, you will have it better. UBI does not imply a "total" equality.

Why not? I mean if you are a swim instructor, then on top of UBI you get salary+something-to-do.

Hmm, the question what is the value of that multiplier? 1.2x? 2x? 5x? 50x? At some threshold (probably around 1.5x companies will start laying people off because they are not needed anymore)

The question of consciousness is immaterial to the question of danger. You need first and foremost think in terms of *capabilities*.

Unconscious model can be just as dangerous.