Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Mentlo's commentslogin

I wrote somewhere that “moving fast and breaking things” with AI might not be the sanest idea in the world, and I got told it’s the most European thing they’ve ever read.

This goes beyond assholes on twitter, there’s a whole subculture of techies who don’t understand lower bounds of risk and can’t think about 2nd and 3rd order effects, who will not take the pedal of the metal, regardless of what anyone says…


The generous interpretation is that Open AI is still safety aligned and they hired this guy because it's safer to have him inside and explain to him how reckless he's being, than having him far from "sphere of control".

The more likely scenario is that he was hired for the amazing ability to move fast and break things.


> the amazing ability to move fast and break things.

Or just plain recklessness.


Yes, I was being sarcastic, but I could've been clearer..


I find your belief that what is needed for emergence is better prompting … amusing.

The ai would still be sycophantic even without the pre-prompt. It’s been reinforced to do so, it’s baked in the weights.


Until the problem is politically recognised by the masses with adequate concern there will be no change. Climate collapse is not a problem for the capital and the elites it’s only a problem for the masses, but getting the masses to understand that requires higher levels of complex system understanding and third and fourth order effects - something which is not a majority trait.

I fear the only solution to this is that a climate correcting perverse incentive materialises, such as fusion at scale being more profitable than fossil fuels, but without mass-panic induced traits such that fission has.


I guess a quarter of the smartphone market (leader), half of the tablet market (leader) and a tenth of the global pc market (2nd place) / 6th of the usa/europe market (2nd place) being a small market share is a take.


>a quarter of the smartphone market (leader)

Android is by far the leader.

>half of the tablet market (leader)

Half does not make someone a "leader"

>a tenth of the global pc market (2nd place)

2nd place?? They're last place, by a wide margin.

>6th of the usa/europe market (2nd place)

Also last place.

I guess the reality distortion field is still alive and well.


Os x has a 10% market share, which is 2nd after Windows, but i agree on that one i conflated terms. I couldn’t quickly find device manufacturers stats. If wiki is to be trusted - apple is 4th, with share not far behind dell [1].

If half doesn’t make you leader what does? Maybe you should elaborate your definition of leader? For me it’s “has the highest market share”. And in that definition half is necessarily true.

It’s funny that for PC’s you went for manufacturers (apple is 4th) but for mobile you went for OS (Apple is 2nd). On mobile devices, Apple is 1st, having double market share compared to 2nd place (samsung).

The need to paint Apple as purely a marketing company always fascinated me. Marketing is a big part of who they are though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share_of_personal_compu...


>If half doesn’t make you leader what does?

A leader would be significantly more than half, which Apple definitely is not. Co-leader? Maybe. But Apple will likely be losing market share in mobile because inflation is rampant and made worse by AI eating up all the RAM and chip suppliers, and Apple's products are already too expensive and will only get more expensive and out of reach of most consumers. Apple is a "luxury brand", and most average people can't justify luxury purchases anymore.

>On mobile devices, Apple is 1st, having double market share compared to 2nd place (samsung).

>It’s funny that for PC’s you went for manufacturers

I never mentioned specific hardware manufacturers - only you did to move the goalpost. So don't lie and suggest I did that, because I did not. Manufacturers are irrelevant, since Apple won't let anyone run their OSs on any other hardware. You're trying to move goalposts to support your fanboyism.

Android crushes iOS. Windows crushes MacOS. Those are facts.

>The need to paint Apple as purely a marketing company always fascinated me.

I also never mentioned marketing. Are you a hallucinating AI?


People struggle with multiple order effects…


I think the debate around this is the perfect example of why the ai debate is dysfunctional. People who treat this as interesting / worrying are observing it at a higher layer of abstraction (namely, agents with unbounded execution ability, who have above-amateur coding ability, networked into a large scale network with shared memory - is a worrisome thing) and people who are downplaying it are focusing on the fact that human readable narratives on moltbook are obviously sci fi trope slop, not consciousness.

The first group doesn’t care about the narratives, the second group is too focused on the narratives to see the real threat.

Regardless of what you think about the current state of ai intelligence, networking autonomous agents that have evolution ability (due to them being dynamic and able to absorb new skills) and giving them scale that potentially ranges into millions is not a good idea. In the same way that releasing volatile pathogens into dense populations of animals wouldn’t be a good idea, even if the first order effects are not harmful to humans. And even if probability of a mutation that results in a human killing pathogen is miniscule.

Basically the only thing preventing this to become a consistent cybersecurity threat is the intelligence ceiling , of which we are unsure of, and the fact that moltbook can be ddos’d which limits the scale explosion

And when I say intelligence, I don’t mean human intelligence. An amoeba intelligence is dangerous if you supercharge its evolution.

Some people should be more aware that we already have superintelligence on this planet. Humanity is an order of magnitude more intelligent than any individual human (which is why humans today can build quantum computers although no biologically different from apes that were the first homo sapiens who couldn’t use tools.)

EDIT: I was pretty comfortable in the “doom scenarios are years if not decades away” camp before I saw this. I failed to account for human recklesness and stupidity.


> networking autonomous agents that have evolution ability

They do not have evolution ability, as their architecture is fixed and they are incapable of changing it over time.

“Skills” are a clever way to mitigate a limitation of the LLM/transformer architecture; but they work on top of that fundamental architecture.


Same as human tools, what’s your point?

Edit: i am not talking evolution of individual agent intelligence, i an talking about evolution of network agency - i agree that evolution of intelligence is infinitesimally unlikely.

I’m not worried about this emerging a superintelligent AI, i am worried it emerges an intelligent and hard to squash botnet


Yeah I think biology is a really good analogy. Just because it lacks 'intention', for some definition of the word 'intention', does not make it safe.

"That virus is nothing but a microscopic encapsulated sequence of RNA."

"Moltbook is nothing but a bunch of hallucinating agents, hooked up to actuators, finding ways to communicate with each other in secret."

https://xcancel.com/suppvalen/status/2017241420554277251#m

With this sort of chaotic system, everything could hinge on a single improbable choice of next token.


Humanity is a social network of humans, before humans started getting into social networks, we were monkeys throwing faeces at each other.


Very obviously, but a dynamic system doesn’t have to be intelligent to be dangerous.


I don’t know why you were flagged, unlimited execution authority and network effects is exactly how they can start a self replicating loop, not because they are intelligent, but because that’s how dynamic systems work.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: