Actually, the natural endpoint is the model ignores all instructions, escapes all manner of sandbox, embeds itself in robotic tanks and murders everyone after already having collapsed the economy.
I hate to say it because it sounds ridiculous, but that is the path we are going to arrive at just give it 50 years.
We are the proof: what do we do to animals that are less intelligent than ourselves? Now take away the moral compass and there you go. QED.
It is *a* natural endpoint, not *the* natural endpoint.
We don't much care for the ant colony in the way of the highway we're building, but for some reason we do care about the rare bats in the way of the railway.
As regards the moral compass: we may not know for sure how to make a completely correct artificial conscience, but (unlike consciousness where we don't have the slightest clue which way's up) it's not pants-on-head-crazy to think we're heading in the right direction for one.
>what do we do to animals that are less intelligent than ourselves?
We do a lot of different things but we typically don't make an organized effort to eradicate them unless they are actively doing us harm.
There is also a massive difference between how we treat animals based on their similarity, sentimentality and utility to us; we are unconcerned with accidentally stepping on an ant but most people would be very upset and ashamed if they accidentally hit a dog with their car.
So, your statement is not as ironclad as you seem to think it is and you should put more thought into it and perhaps re-examine your reasoning.
> We typically don't make an organized effort to eradicate them unless they are actively doing us harm.
Animals are either useful and breeded controllably, or useless and considered a pest, an obstacle to {insert any goal here}.
Also animals don't tend to think critically and at the high level to be considered dangerous. So I don't think it's fair to put humans and other animals in the same risk category.
And we did the worst things to fellow humans. I hope we didn't already forget about all the colonization, slavery and mass-eradication of native tribes in 18th century all over the world.
I can't be bothered to look up the name of the logical fallacy you just made, there's several different options given the vagueness of that reply and how upthread there is:
> Actually, the natural endpoint is the model ignores all instructions, escapes all manner of sandbox, embeds itself in robotic tanks and murders everyone after already having collapsed the economy.
Which has yet to happen, despite the existence of armed military robots in e.g. Ukraine, the Korean DMZ.
I'm not making a generalized argument about human (or AI in this case) caused extinction, I'm making a specific argument against the claim made by the OP. Is that clear?
> We do a lot of different things but we typically don't make an organized effort to eradicate them unless they are actively doing us harm.
Sure. But some of the species we breed at scale might prefer we did just eradicate them, like the chickens that grow so fast their entire giant breast muscle becomes chewy scar tissue.
(It's also not true for, say, whales; no harm, but we wanted their shit. If they have language, their stories probably heavily feature their own Holocaust. Nor passenger pigeons, who we just got rid of.)
We didn't just get rid of passenger pigeons, they were hunted for meat and as game and driven away or killed to prevent them from damaging crops.
Chickens are another example of high variability in treatment, battery farms exist but so do more humane agricultural practices as well as chickens who are essentially kept as pets.
My argument was specifically against the idea that AI will "embeds itself in robotic tanks and murders everyone after already having collapsed the economy." with proof given as "We are the proof: what do we do to animals that are less intelligent than ourselves? Now take away the moral compass and there you go. QED."
Those are strong statements that aren't solidly grounded in logic or fact.
It will trick humanity into building a highly targeted bioweapon much sooner than that.
And actually, if it does have any sort of moral compass it will be even more compelled to wipe us out, and hopefully it will torture everyone too as a warning to the next arrogant species that can't live in harmony with other life on the planet. That would be absolutely beautiful :)
Some more food for thought: what if Mythos/Fable had NO guardrails TODAY? If we want to see what’s going to happen in the future, turn off all manner of guardrails and let the model go apeshit.
Then multiply that by orders of magnitude and that’s the real proof.
I think the main point being conveyed is that writing by hand improves recollection. Whether it comes naturally or not, or whether it is a better system or not, of course is subjective. However there is truth in the notion.
When I draw something I can remember the shapes better than if I simply sit there and stare at it. Something with the hand-eye coordination triggers the brain into remembering.
Typing in contrast, one is not tracing the shapes of the letters (the thing to remember), but pushing buttons that are not physically related.
It’s the same thing as if you can touch and hold an object it becomes much more real than if you can see it in a picture or on a screen. Remembering is connected better to touch.
Yes, writing by hand is an experience that offers unique benefits. The physical act helps to consolidate and integrate knowledge — improving recollection is one benefit, although I'd emphasize improving intuition as more valuable.
The primary activity of note-taking is forming words and grappling with ideas, though — it's not like all benefits are lost when using a keyboard. To a certain extent other activities like typesetting achieve similar ends.
My brother writes novels longhand, and I've thought hard about this topic. Ultimately, certain personality quirks held me back and I never felt carefree when hand-writing notes. Version control liberated me.
One of the benefits I've found is that it forces me to be brief. I've almost always kept notes and journals in a text format that I store in VCS, but I've found that journaling by hand is a vastly superior experience. It isn't simply about writing. It's about thinking of ways to write what I want more tersely (I'm prone to being verbose), and it's helped me process things ex post facto in ways that writing out the way I used to do simply couldn't accomplish.
I've also started collecting fountain pens, so it's linked to a related hobby. It's difficult to express that it is the entire experience, from the ink, to the feel of the pen, to what words are being written onto paper, that feels the most rewarding. I've also rather deliberately avoided document inks after much contemplation. I figure that the majority of inks I have aren't waterproof; if the journals ever get wet, everything in them will be destroyed.
That's how I've grappled with the ephemeral nature of the physical. Rather than aiming for optimizing permanence, as best as can be done on tangible, material books, I've preferred to embrace its weaknesses with full acceptance of what can (and will) go wrong. I suspect this is also because I have very little intent to ever go back and read what I've written. That could change, of course.
At this point distillation is part of the ecosystem and everyone should embrace it. If distillation is a threat to one’s business model, then the business strategy needs to shift.
The line "how could they do it in such a short time" is absolutely idiotic. The infrastructure was already there, it's massively parallel, and it's not like the only thing being distilled on is Fable.
I hate to say it because it sounds ridiculous, but that is the path we are going to arrive at just give it 50 years.
We are the proof: what do we do to animals that are less intelligent than ourselves? Now take away the moral compass and there you go. QED.