As mentioned by another commenter, the real danger is that these tools act as amplifiers and enablers for human agents that want to do really bad things. Whereas some crazy group that wants to destroy X for some reason, but had no ability to do so before, with the help of advanced AI tools might have a chance.

The other is the human deploying these things don't even need to be bad (evil) actors. They can just be really dumb and/or lazy in how they use them and then inadvertently cause huge amounts of real damage.

As Margaret Atwood pointed out "Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results"

This is the same description as any other technology including fire.

Yep. Fire is actually a great example, its both useful and dangerous. And so we have probably 10s of thousands of fire regulations for products, buildings, vehicles. We have fire departments, we have regular fire drills, we think about fire safety constantly and for the very good reason that if we don't fire can kill us and destroy vast of amount of stuff.

So, hell yes. Let's treat AI with the same degree of care we treat fire.

10,000% growth! No way that could be wild claim! How dare we doubt them.

I happen to have TWO big boxes of cables. One for home and one for work. Just this week ago I was vindicated by having just the cable someone needed for something. Not having a big box of cables nearby would be make feel exposed and vulnerable. Its security blanket made of obsolete connectors.

> Weekly training volume is the most reliable predictor for injuries.

Yep! I tend to do too much (because I like exercising), so I have be deliberate about including light training and recovery days. Absolutely necessary for injury avoidance, and frankly overall health benefits.

The political objectives for the war were Netanyahu's who managed quite the move in getting Trump to commit to this. But still an open question how much his motives were rationally objective or senseless passion.

Even Bibi has been screwed by this war, because it hasn't made Israel safer, and he's got an election coming up.

> they could be significantly piggybacking on human progress,

This is AI in a nutshell, its a plagiarism machine. An abstraction layer between vast amounts of stolen human-generated data that filters out the liabilities and accountability for that original theft. Its an IP laundering system.

But it’s not brute force if it’s looking over everyone’s shoulder

Brute force would have been solving Navier-Stokes in 88 hours after plagiarizing all known 20th century math

When it needs to snoop live on what the actual mathematicians are working on that’s something else

No its happening whilst the human is working with it. The new inputs provided become part of the brute-force. This is what Scam Altman means by 'self-recursive'.

Trust me I've seen it happen to myself. I no longer trust ChatGPT.

I can see right through his act. Altman is one devious f8k.

AI needs humans to encode ideas in words. It needs those ideas to span the space of possibilities of, say, Navier Stokes. Then AI can be, as you say, a terrifyingly effective way to search that space.

But when the building-block ideas are still being formed, I'm not sure that AI is good at forming them.

COrrect and this is how labour displacement happens.

There are many actions being performed today that can be nicely packaged.

Im already working on such a project.

Dont forget the holisitic validators/tools in the process. Probabilistics alone likely will not get you here. These rules are human made and without it, frontier models would not be able to compete, likely.

That's such an unquantifiable accusation.

Plus it is an unfair standard since so many scientists in the past have been caught unethically using the work of others without attribution (and so many more have been accused).

In history we also repeatedly see the phenomenon of multiple discovery or simultaneous invention. If that happens to AI because the topic is pregnant, would you call it "plagiarism" just to disparage AI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

Your first example is the apt one here. In this case openAI was, allegedly, pilfering the work of the scientists into the AI.

How is it an unfair standard. OpenAI stole the work of others to build the AI. That's not different than scientists stealing from other works as their own, or artists copying others work as their own, etc. It's all plagarism. I'm applying the same standard for everybody.

As for multiple discovery, this is a thing, but I don't think the AI did a parallel discovery any more than Ray Kroc made the parallel discovery of the MacDonald brother's speedee service system.

He's probably already drafting an EO to NASA to rename the sun to "the america".

I think The Dictator covered this:

https://youtu.be/NYJ2w82WifU

Diesel-generated electrical propulsion in ships have been a thing for a long time. You can use several generators and only fire up the ones you need for the power you need and the ones running can do so in or near their optimal efficiency zones. You can also do away with the weight and mechanical losses from gear boxes because the electric motors don't need them.

Should they give up pneumatic air guns if the company that supplies then can then control what you build with them, how you build with them, and secretly copies all your designs for their own use. Sure its a good tool, but its also becoming a trap.

So in some very weird way, this is similar to right to repair vs John Deere.

Or is it just capitalism doing capitalism stuff?

It is capitalism doing capitalism stuff, but more fundamentally technology is allowing for more centralized control of more things by fewer people. Regardless of ideology, increasing concentration of power has bad outcomes for people (except the ones in power).

That half of any sizeable population will always be dumber than the average of that population is thing that feels worrisome even though its just how statistics work.