Mrkvitko

Mrkvitko t1_je8im10 wrote

Reply to comment by Spire_Citron in The Only Way to Deal With the Threat From AI? Shut It Down by GorgeousMoron

Nuclear war is probably extinction event for all / most life on earth in the long term anyways. Modern society will very likely fall apart. Because post-war society will no longer have cheap energy and resources available (we already mined those easily accessible), it won't be able to reach technological level comparable to ours.

Then all it takes is one rogue asteroid, or supervolcano eruption. Advanced society might be able to prevent it. Middle-ages one? Not so much.

1

Mrkvitko t1_je8ajsn wrote

Reply to The Only Way to Deal With the Threat From AI? Shut It Down by GorgeousMoron

Most people mention air attacks on the datacenters as the most controversial point, and miss the paragraph just below. > Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.

That is downright insane. The ASI might kill billions, assuming:

  1. it is possible for us to create it
  2. we will actually create it
  3. it will be initially unaligned
  4. it will want to kill us all (either by choice or by accident)
  5. it will be able to gain resources to do so
  6. we won't be able to stop it

Failure at any of these steps means nobody is going to die. And we don't know how big is the probability of each of the steps succeeding or failing.

We however know that nuclear exchange will certainly kill billions. We know the weapon amounts and yields, we know their effect on human bodies.

If you argue it's better to certainly kill billions and destroy (likely permanently) human civilization over the hypothetical that you will kill billions and destroy human civilization, you're at best deranged lunatic, and evil psychopath at worst.

19

Mrkvitko t1_j710hws wrote

Reply to comment by Ragondux in Protecting ourselves against Deepfakes by Soft-Flamingo6003

Which will give you nothing. It won't prove the video is a deepfake or not. Not to mention you're unlikely to do the verification by yourselves (generally, each time video is uploaded somewhere it is recompressed which changes its checksum). So you're relying on some "trustworthy institution" anyways.

In that case, you can drop the blockchain and just check what the institution says.

1

Mrkvitko t1_j6zqz7j wrote

Reply to comment by BigZaddyZ3 in Protecting ourselves against Deepfakes by Soft-Flamingo6003

There's no chance we'll get ban on this sooner than these algorithms get open sourced. Not to mention it has legit uses. Really, what is going to happen is it will be even harder to get to a truthful and real content.

What is going to happen is we won't be able to trust every recording we see or hear, much like we do with text. That's it.

2

Mrkvitko t1_j6zqbm6 wrote

Reply to Protecting ourselves against Deepfakes by Soft-Flamingo6003

I don't want to sound rude, but maybe you should try to relax, or if it gets bad, therapy.

Yes, there is a chance someone will create some deepfake porn of you. And guess what, it doesn't have to be man :)

No, there isn't any way to prevent this, other than not having photos/videos/audio of you available at all.

Yes, the implications are insane... But not in a way you think they are.

Nothing will be trustworthy anymore. The politics would turn into much bigger shitshow than it is now. The news reporting will be plagued by fakes. But everyone's privacy will be much better than before.

Your ex leaked your nudes? Nobody will be able to say if they are legit, or if it's just a deepfake. A video of you jerking off got online, because you forgot to put a tape over camera? Surely that must be a deepfake. Audio of you drunkely confessing to infidelity? Deepfake.

If someone digitally stitches your face onto someone else's body in a porn movie... Why should you even care? There's no reason to worry.

2

Mrkvitko t1_iyoh790 wrote

Reply to Have you updated your timelines following ChatGPT? by EntireContext

I was quite optimistic we'll get AGI in 2020's. But I want to see some partial breakthrough in a year or two, or 2030's will become more realistic...

Don't get me wrong - ChatGPT can do some impressive things. Solving Advent of code tasks. Fixing buggy code given a stack trace, etc...

But there are cases where it just fakes it and gives a convincingly looking wrong answer.

4

Mrkvitko t1_irwu3kp wrote

Reply to comment by PerfectRuin in Why does everyone assume that AI will be conscious? by Rumianti6

Where is the borderline between "alive" and "non-alive"? Are humans alive? Certainly. Are they conscious? Yup. How about animals? They are alive, some species are well self aware and probably conscious to some degree. What about plants and mushrooms? Certainly alive, but given their absence of nervous system, it is unlikely they are conscious in the traditional sense. How about single cells organisms (yeasts, bacteria, protozoa...) They are alive, moving, hunting... But probably not conscious, as they (again) don't have any complex nervous system. How about viruses? They are certainly not conscious, maybe not even alive.

Being alive is certainly independent on being conscious. "Being alive" is basically synonymous with "having metabolism". There's insane amount of organisms that are alive and not conscious that proves the point.

But it doesn't tell us anything about whether being conscious depends on "being alive". All we can say is we haven't yet observed any thing that would be conscious and not alive. My assumption is "being conscious" is just a matter of complexity - and the only reason we haven't observed any conscious "not living" thing is because there is no known process that would create things that are complex enough. Well, until humanity emerged.

Don't go anywhere, I like this discussion :)

2