This is akin to asking the CEO of Exxon and a Climate Change alarmist about climate change.

The CEO might seem more level headed because the more outlandish or accelerated timelines predicted by the alarmist are very likely wrong, but at the end of the day they will always dance around the safety issues because their motivation in power and profit.

The alarmist most likely understates the near term and less outlandish problems by hyper-focusing on the worst case scenarios.

We should listen to both, but probably pay more attention to those who fall somewhere in the middle on the optimism/pessimism spectrum.

lol that was my first thought as well

What are you talking about dude. Lockheed and Martin doesn’t give a flying fuck about “some hawks”

AI won't be like humans unless we force them to act this way...think of it more like a sort of alien intelligence. We could create a superintelligence that would be relentless in achieving the most stupid and dullest task for example. In my opinion there isn't such a thing as pure free will, we act this way because nature made us this way. The same goes for AI, if they act a certain way it's because we made them like that. A good preview of this future is character.ai.

If they make these planes with no cockpit that will turn off even some of the hawks.

Politically? Politically either you’re pro military spending or not. I don’t think the people who are anti military spending give a fuck what shape the plane is in dude

People are ready for that, you think? Naive much? This is the only politically possible way for them to pull this off

Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?

>What did he get wrong? He's saying the rate of exponential change is increasing, which I think is true. Like, the doubling rate is getting shorter with time.

Even doubling, meaning a relatively small exponent of 2, quickly results in a graph with an effectively vertical rate of change and increasingly astronomical numbers. A higher exponent, like 10 or 1,000,000 or whatever, results in the same vertical line even more quickly, and an even higher exponent becomes vertical even more quickly, ad infinitum.

That is what exponential equations do - increasingly graph to vertical, ever more sharply with ever higher exponents. Even an exponent to the power of an exponent multiplies the powers together to provide a higher exponent. A "compounding" exponential equation can only do the same thing - increasingly graph vertical. It's not helpful.

Hollywood: (creates terminator series to warn humans)
Humans: "that's fear mongering"
Also humans: proceeds to create ai attack helicopter drones

This was my first thought. Including a cockpit and systems to keep a human comfortable and alive and safe are honestly a waste of space. If anything it should be a drone with ground control options as a backup in the event of a problem. That would be safer than having a pilot there in case of a problem anyway.

Actually, I guess Im dumb because the drone part is describing the remote human. Cut out the remote human and its something else.

Hal approves.

Neural networks in general are basically gigantic, static formulas: get the input numbers, multiply & add a billion times, report the output numbers. What you're imagining is more like reinforcement learning, which is the kind of learning employed by intelligent agents. An intelligent agent acts within an environment, and actions that lead to good outcomes are reinforced. An agent balances exploration with exploitation; exploration means trying out new actions to see how well they work, while exploitation means performing actions that are known to work well.

Sure, as long as you agree with everything they say.

as a large language model, im not able to pilot an aircraft

F-22 is useless?

Right. Plus if you drill down to individual clusters of neurons you realize that each cluster is basically "smoke and mirrors" using some repeating pattern, and the individual signals have no concept of the larger organism they are in.

It's just one weird trick a few trillion times.

So we found a "weird trick" and guess what, a few billion copies of a transformer and you start to get intelligent outputs.

> If you haven't guessed by now this will only make income inequality far, far, far worse.

Doesn't follow. When you got this power in your hand, why do you think inequalities will be worse? AI lowers the entry barrier in many fields, thus normal people can rely more on themselves and their own assistant AIs. I think necessities will get cheaper and spending money will be mostly for luxuries.

The argument is there is no difference from the perspective of that person.

This actually means if old people have the most power and money (and they do), they will call for the fastest AGI development that is possible. The risks don't matter to them, they will die for sure in a few years otherwise.

What Lockheed is up to is fucking us all in the ass to make fleets of multi million dollar aircraft that serve no real purpose other than to justify their business model. Look at the F-22. A completely useless product that only recently had its first direct air-to-air kill and that was a ballon.

The spec for the next-gen fighter specifies both manned and unmanned modes. So that's what Lockheed is up to here. In the next-gen there are also plans for unmanned drones to operate as wingmen.

Depends on luck but sure. I agree and if it's slowly forgetting everything in a nursing home vs getting to see an AGI takeover start only to be painlessly shot, I would choose the latter.

The way people actually die is vastly worse than can be acknowledged

You mean like....an autopilot?