lf88

Well..clearly it isn't safer: alignment is ill defined, and open weights models can be abliterated with limited resources.

I am worried about many things.

I would say that the existential threats are: - biosecurity risks (i.e., AI-assisted development of very effective biological weapons) - a future where humanity becomes a sort of a "pet species" of an artificial superintelligence (humanity would not go extinct in this scenario, but the loss of agency and meaning would be such that I consider it an existential threat)

I'm worried about other risks that I would not define "existential" but are still likely to cause great harm to humans: - large-scale AI-powered disinformation campaigns that could undermine our democracies - the potential of AI for pervasive, automated surveillance, which could lead to an inescapable authoritarian future - autonomous weapons (could become an "existential risk" if at some point we'll allow AI to control also nuclear weapons) - cyberattacks to critical infrastructures - the consequences of widespread unemployment among white-collar workers: social unrest, rampant inequalities... - the consequences of prolonged cognitive offloading on our minds

On a more personal level I would say that AI could automate away some aspects of my job that I deeply enjoy. It's personal, but I think that many people feel the same, and this makes them suffer at various degrees. I'm also saddened by the widespread usage of AI to write texts of any kind, even personal communications, as I feel that the human behind those texts disappears (I acknowledge that, compared to all the other things, this point is minor).

I'm not using them at all. I am too worried about certain aspects of the technology and its current trajectory, which I consider a very serious threat to humanity.

Complete title: Why we must stop talking about artificial general intelligence — and instead build ‘pro-worker’ AI

Sad... another interesting thing broken by AI...

It's refreshing to see serious open-source projects adopting a strict policy on LLM-assisted contributions.

Besides considering frontier LLMs a serious threat to humanity, I find LLM-assisted programming simply...not fun! I tolerate only AI-assisted bug reports, as they are genuinely useful.

I am actively trying not to use it at my day-job, and I am a (mainly) computational physicist. My mother tongue is not English, I live in a country where the language is neither my mother tongue nor English, and I still don't use AI for writing emails or other documents. It is going OK so far. However, if significantly more powerful AI is developed, I think that we'll have much more serious problems than using or not-using AI in our job.

And then an AI will likely read those fancy emails and summarize them into three bullet points.

Chess and StarCraft are games. For many other intellectual activities, part of the satisfaction comes from contributing something meaningful to a collective effort. If a machine can do that orders of magnitude faster, for many people these activities become effectively pointless.

Shameful

AI development should be harnessed in such a way that AI augments humans without replacing them. Tools that replace human intelligence altogether are not true progress for humanity.

Building a super-intelligent AI is the stated goal of major AI companies. It may or may not be possible, but due to the recent surge in capabilities of frontier models I would not take any risk.

Frontier models are, indeed, already too capable and too dangerous. I would have been more comfortable if a stop of the development occurred 12 months ago. However, the second best moment to press the "stop" button is now.

This goal seems flawed to me. There's no universal agreement on "morals and ethics". Superficially people may agree on some general principles, but if you go into the details you'll likely find substantial differences.