>

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (81∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
/u/chimp246 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Might be? Every possible application of software for any purpose will always be exploited for safe and unsafe purposes. Assume Murphy's law is like rule number 1 for infosec. 
My question to you is why on earth would you think exploitable software wouldn't be used for nefarious purposes? >


My question to you is why on earth would you think exploitable software wouldn't be used for nefarious purposes?

Obviously every technology has a negative impact. I think a highly intelligent AI would have an especially negative impact because of its abllility to mimic a bad actor. While new technologies in weaponry and computation can be used for evil purposes, AI can actually emulate evil intelligence. >

Of course AI can be used nefariously. That's trivially true because it's just a tool. So what's the view you want changed? 
How could someone possibly prove a tool can't be used nefariously? Even a hammer can be used nefariously. >


How could someone possibly prove a tool can't be used nefariously? Even a hammer can be used nefariously.

Right, theoretically you could write a similar post about the dangers of more advanced hammer equipment and the thesis would hold. For me, the huge difference is that a language model is something more than a tool: it's a system capable of understanding plans and complex motives. The kinds of scary things you can do with misaligned intelligence are a lot worse than the things you can do with standard human tools. >

But no one can possibly prove hammers can't do any damage to a person because they trivially can. 
Why would you be open to changing the view that hammers can be used to harm someone? >


But no one can possibly prove hammers can't do any damage to a person because they trivially can. 

That's a fair criticism. I probably should have made the post slightly more slightly clearer in the conclusion: language models should be tightly regulated. >

There's no "might" and I don't think AI really even needs to be much above average to be dangerous.
Nefarious use of AI is already happening, we'll start hearing more about it this year. >

!delta We can agree that even a below average AI can have a negative impact. I don't think that changes the central thesis? It makes the central thesis even stronger.