Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
I read this pmarca essay and apart from saying "people been scared of tech for ages", "it's hard to measure the problem" and the quote below he doesn't really address AI doomers arguments. I like his essays but got deeply disappointed with this one. https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-will-save-the-world
6 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
imho the main X-risk was sufficiently addressed, but the one thing that stuck out to me was the glossing over of "productivity != local compensation". don't think the essay confronted the imperative to maintain a domestic consumer base of physical goods/services over the global nonscarcity of productive software.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
Which argument do you think addressed the X-Risk properly? Maybe I missed something
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
all of AI Risk #1 & reference to criminal behavior at the end was sufficient. just because one force multiplier exists does not mean that the underlying risk is unlikely to occur. bio/misinfo/robo all rely on human commission of that "attack", all preexistant w/o multiplier. and PGP = munition is invalidated already.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Mac Budkowski ᵏ
@macbudkowski
I think these are decent argument but for me the central question is: "How do you control something that's 100X smarter than you?". I haven't found an answer to that.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
𒂠_𒍣𒅀_𒊑
@m-j-r
it hasn't been deployed as 100x INT w/o HITL design. autonomous LLM hasn't demonstrated 100x INT. and we should be focused on 100x efficiency for sum of several billion online user's INT. control is wicked easy when the interface & mass consensus are one and the same. who's throwing a datacenter at a monolith?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction