Replying to @⁨Wurzl@lemmy.zip⁩

I am not terribly worried about 2026 ChatGPT posing an existential threat to humanity—though some people, like Yudkowsky, are. Yudkowsky’s scenerio is via someone inadvertently managing to produce an advanced AI via poorly-controlled-and-understood efforts to develop one using less-sophisticated, current AIs, and that advanced AI being the problem.

But I don’t think that most people who are concerned about existential risk are worried mostly about the next three-and-a-quarter years, which is what Huang is addressing, but rather what happens with more-advanced AIs that we intentionally develop. It seems very unlikely that we will not develop these, absent some sort of global, actively-enforced agreement not to do so. And…I’m not sure that we even have the ability to realistically enforce such an agreement, even if we decided that we wanted to do so. As I’ve commented before, that’s effectively an arms control treaty, and the history of those has been spotty.

The reason that one wants to be figuring out safety now, rather than waiting for someone to go develop the thing and then start thinking about safety, is that the major advantage we have now is time.

Replying to @⁨Wurzl@lemmy.zip⁩

It will probably be 2038 with Oracle leading the charge of expecting AI to solve the 2038 problem after everyone collectively waits until the last minute because they don’t want to pay for IT, while new software without foresight continues to prefer MySQL timestamp over datetime because you can get it to be UTC aware with the table definition for audit fields (e.g. on update clause) instead of having to create a separate trigger to explicitly set it to UTC.

Replying to @⁨deadowl@lemmy.world⁩

after everyone collectively waits until the last minute because they don’t want to pay for IT

We handled the Y2K problem. Yeah, a few minor bugs slipped through, but I remember identical concerns in the 1990s about how businesses would wait until the last minute and then there wouldn’t be enough people with the relevant skillset to get it fixed in a short window.

I’m pretty confident that we’ll also handle the Y2038 problem.

Replying to @⁨Wurzl@lemmy.zip⁩

More confirmation that the AI Death Threats is designed to do two things:

  1. Encourage regulations that, in effect, hand control of future development to big players.
  2. Slows development just as development is becoming more expensive and returning fewer performance gains at prices nobody wants to pay (the S curve reminding us that, yes, it exists).

Either of those situations would slow the sales of chips, so of course Jensen is going to argue against it.

The business press does not pursue the truth, it is an easily manipulable forum to raise stock prices.

Replying to @⁨Buckshot@programming.dev⁩

Right. Everyone has been selling AI-enabled phones and computers for a few years now… Now that AI companies are actually charging real money for tokens, people are automatically routing their questions to their local AI for the cost of electricity, and saving their queries to OpenAI, etc., for the harder questions.

The valuations are absolutely bonkers. OpenAI is just cloud computing which every single major customer they have asking themselves every quarter if they should just go in-house.

Replying to @⁨Wurzl@lemmy.zip⁩

Someone says something controversial or scary to drum up media hype to keep the hype train moving. Other CEO's jump on board (to try to spin the news to make it seem like they're being responsible by not developing their product for "safety reasons" when in fact it's because they can't), Lead CEO then comes out and makes a statement trying to spin it the other way also to keep the hype train going and convince us they have it under control.

I can't wait for the crash and burn.