The word itself keeps changing its meaning - it used to mean ML techniques, then looking forward to gen-AI, now it supposedly means “capitalism distilled”? See e.g. https://www.structural-integrity.eu/is-there-a-need-for-ai-after-capitalism/ for an excellent example of the kind of anxiety surrounding AI that we are talking about.
I agree with you that ML itself is not a problem, nor even is LLM technology. Although like nuclear power, as we advance towards true AI the more powerful the tool the greater danger its misuse portends, as you said. And also as you said, as it got big the discussion moved towards the latter topic, without bothering to be precise in what was being discussed, instead calling everything by the (clickbait?) buzzword “AI”.
The “danger line” I perceive is when we give anything “agency”. It can be a float-level-switch on a lake controlling the water release gates on a dam, such a simple thing, but if it has a malfunction (and nobody notices in time) the dam might get over-topped with water, or the whole lake might be emptied - potentially flooding downstream communities, or simply wasting valuable water needed to get through the next dry season… all that from a simple little (binary) bit of “artificial intelligence” - but when it’s granted “agency” to operate the flood gates without competent oversight, it becomes dangerous.
May 6, 2010 a large collection of automated trading algorithms, acting with agency too fast for anyone to manage caused a dramatic flash-crash of the stock market.
Lately, we’ve got <a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA”>ELIZA</a> gone wild in advanced chat-bots. People who allow themselves to be sucked into the fantasy that the chatbot “is real” like a person they can trust are giving those chat-bots agency in their lives - and with a baseline of 132 suicides per DAY in the US alone, of course there will be some people whose decision to take their own life was influenced, both for and against, by their interaction with chat-bots.
I give the LLMs (limited) agency in the creation of software. I like to think I employ a risk-based approach, giving more agency and less oversight in simple applications with limited to near-zero risk while providing stricter oversight and review for LLM generated code which has more important functions / greater risk of harm should it malfunction… Of course, these are judgement calls, and with millions of people using LLMs to generate code, even if they all follow a similar risk-based approach to how much unrestricted agency the LLM is given, there will be those who make bad judgement calls…
Then there’s the YOLOs - pushing the boundaries as hard and fast as they can in some sort of quest to be the first to achieve something great. As Olivander said to Harry Potter: “He who must not be named did great things, terrible to be sure, but also great.”
I love the nuanced approach here - neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. Then again, I would strongly question the utilityn here or even definition of “great” - except you were just using it in an explanatory sense, so I get what you mean, but like for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I see such ugliness, even while I also see potential for truly great good as well. It is definitely not the “fault” of the tool, but rather the wielder, although either way I see why people have anxiety, when they consider the ways that the tools are currently and actively being used against their interests.
for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Sort of as you say: it’s a matter of perspective. If I as CEO of a major corporation were to extract $1T in personal compensation legally free and clear in a matter of 3 quarters from the time I took control until I made my exit, that would be a great achievement - perhaps the greatest from my personal perspective. Regardless of what kind of shambles I may have left the corporation and its business partners in - I would still go down in history as having achieved a kind of greatness. And, I wouldn’t exactly be looking for references for another job, either.
So then… Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman (spez from Reddit)? You’ve also heard the name “Pol Pot” before… so by that definition, he is great as well? By that definition, I am forced to agree with you.
Although why are we using that definition again? The large majority of the definition according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great seems to point rather in the opposing direction.
“remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness”, “great bloodshed”, “caused great damage” - this is the one you seem to be using
“used as a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
“chief or preeminent over others”, this might actually apply but then we get into what “over” means, so I’d rather choose a different one instead
“markedly superior in character or quality” -> HELL NO, unless again you get into the meaning of “superior”, and/or of “quality”
Basically you seem to be using “great” to mean “remarkable”. Yes, such a CEO would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”. Although beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, so obviously I do not mean to suggest that nobody will consider them great, just that most people probably would not, for the reason that they got theirs while leaving others to hold the bag. Especially since “others” in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman
IDK about Huffman, but the Voldemort analogy for the others is apt.
the one you seem to be using
The first one listed, yes.
a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
Isn’t English an awesomely terrible language?
would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”.
Was Ghengis Khan a great conquerer? Have we made America Great again yet?
Note, I’m not asking if Ghengis or the rest are beautiful, or good role models.
in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
Again, sounds suspiciously close to the Voldemort agenda to me…
The word itself keeps changing its meaning - it used to mean ML techniques, then looking forward to gen-AI, now it supposedly means “capitalism distilled”? See e.g. https://www.structural-integrity.eu/is-there-a-need-for-ai-after-capitalism/ for an excellent example of the kind of anxiety surrounding AI that we are talking about.
I agree with you that ML itself is not a problem, nor even is LLM technology. Although like nuclear power, as we advance towards true AI the more powerful the tool the greater danger its misuse portends, as you said. And also as you said, as it got big the discussion moved towards the latter topic, without bothering to be precise in what was being discussed, instead calling everything by the (clickbait?) buzzword “AI”.
The “danger line” I perceive is when we give anything “agency”. It can be a float-level-switch on a lake controlling the water release gates on a dam, such a simple thing, but if it has a malfunction (and nobody notices in time) the dam might get over-topped with water, or the whole lake might be emptied - potentially flooding downstream communities, or simply wasting valuable water needed to get through the next dry season… all that from a simple little (binary) bit of “artificial intelligence” - but when it’s granted “agency” to operate the flood gates without competent oversight, it becomes dangerous.
May 6, 2010 a large collection of automated trading algorithms, acting with agency too fast for anyone to manage caused a dramatic flash-crash of the stock market.
Lately, we’ve got <a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA”>ELIZA</a> gone wild in advanced chat-bots. People who allow themselves to be sucked into the fantasy that the chatbot “is real” like a person they can trust are giving those chat-bots agency in their lives - and with a baseline of 132 suicides per DAY in the US alone, of course there will be some people whose decision to take their own life was influenced, both for and against, by their interaction with chat-bots.
I give the LLMs (limited) agency in the creation of software. I like to think I employ a risk-based approach, giving more agency and less oversight in simple applications with limited to near-zero risk while providing stricter oversight and review for LLM generated code which has more important functions / greater risk of harm should it malfunction… Of course, these are judgement calls, and with millions of people using LLMs to generate code, even if they all follow a similar risk-based approach to how much unrestricted agency the LLM is given, there will be those who make bad judgement calls…
Then there’s the YOLOs - pushing the boundaries as hard and fast as they can in some sort of quest to be the first to achieve something great. As Olivander said to Harry Potter: “He who must not be named did great things, terrible to be sure, but also great.”
I love the nuanced approach here - neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. Then again, I would strongly question the utilityn here or even definition of “great” - except you were just using it in an explanatory sense, so I get what you mean, but like for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I see such ugliness, even while I also see potential for truly great good as well. It is definitely not the “fault” of the tool, but rather the wielder, although either way I see why people have anxiety, when they consider the ways that the tools are currently and actively being used against their interests.
Sort of as you say: it’s a matter of perspective. If I as CEO of a major corporation were to extract $1T in personal compensation legally free and clear in a matter of 3 quarters from the time I took control until I made my exit, that would be a great achievement - perhaps the greatest from my personal perspective. Regardless of what kind of shambles I may have left the corporation and its business partners in - I would still go down in history as having achieved a kind of greatness. And, I wouldn’t exactly be looking for references for another job, either.
So then… Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman (spez from Reddit)? You’ve also heard the name “Pol Pot” before… so by that definition, he is great as well? By that definition, I am forced to agree with you.
Although why are we using that definition again? The large majority of the definition according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great seems to point rather in the opposing direction.
“remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness”, “great bloodshed”, “caused great damage” - this is the one you seem to be using
“used as a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
“chief or preeminent over others”, this might actually apply but then we get into what “over” means, so I’d rather choose a different one instead
“markedly superior in character or quality” -> HELL NO, unless again you get into the meaning of “superior”, and/or of “quality”
Basically you seem to be using “great” to mean “remarkable”. Yes, such a CEO would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”. Although beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, so obviously I do not mean to suggest that nobody will consider them great, just that most people probably would not, for the reason that they got theirs while leaving others to hold the bag. Especially since “others” in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
IDK about Huffman, but the Voldemort analogy for the others is apt.
The first one listed, yes.
Isn’t English an awesomely terrible language?
Was Ghengis Khan a great conquerer? Have we made America Great again yet?
Note, I’m not asking if Ghengis or the rest are beautiful, or good role models.
Again, sounds suspiciously close to the Voldemort agenda to me…