the gears to ascenscion's Shortform

the gears to ascension

This is a special post for quick takes by the gears to ascension. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

so I saw "the banal evil of AI safety", about what AI safety is doing wrong (they claim basically should treat mental health advice as similarly critical to CBRN). I disagree with some of the mud slinging but it's quite understandable given the stakes.

someone else I saw said this, so the sentiment isn't universal.

idk just thought someone should post it. ~~react "typo" if you think i should include titles for the links, I currently lean towards anti-clickbait though~~ edit: done edit 2, 2mo later: oops, now it's done

Typo react from me. I think you should call your links something informative. If you think the title of the post is clickbate, you can re-title it something better maybe?

Now I have to click to find out what the link is even about, which is also click-bate-y.

2the gears to ascension1y

author is well respected, isn't just saying this for no reason, so working through the confusion could be useful. I share it because it seems to make mistakes. author is https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Faculty/Homepages/brecht.html

4testingthewaters1y

I think this is a replay of the contrast I mentioned here of "static" vs "dynamic" conceptions about AI. To the author of the original post, AI is an existing technology that has taken a particular shape, so its important to ask what harms that shape might cause in society. To AI safety folk, the shape is an intermediate stage and rapidly changing into a world ending superbeing, so asking about present harms (or, indeed, being overly worried about chatbot misalignment) is a distraction from the "core issue".

the gears to ascenscion's Shortform

10

the gears to ascenscion's Shortform

10