Quoted in "AI researcher who warned of ‘disaster’ is now a target of the right/Critics accuse Jacob Coxon of being a plant after he warned of looming 'disaster'" (WaPo)
Coxon is the person we were talking about yesterday, in that post about the belief that A.I. might end the world in the next 10 years. I've updated that post with a video about how instantly Coxon's post went viral, boosted by Bernie Sanders and various high-level Democrats.
Now, reading WaPo, I see that video is part of what's now being disparaged as right-wing targeting. Does WaPo acknowledge what came from Bernie and the Democrats? It interviews Coxon, who is paraphrased saying "he didn’t work with any organizations to promote his announcement before posting it on X."
Loopholes may be found in the words "work," "organizations," and "before." Did he do something other than "work"? Did he work with individuals, e.g. Bernie Sanders, rather than organizations? Did he work with organizations/individuals after he posted? I don't know. I just see the weasel words, WaPo.
I hate to see this issue turn into a left/right face off! Reminds me of climate change. So unhelpful.
ADDED: From the WaPo article: "[Coxon] faced accusations, with little evidence, from people on the political right claiming that he was a plant meant to scare lawmakers into clamping down on the industry." With little evidence? That means there is evidence, or they'd have used their favorite anti-right-wing phrase, "without evidence."
Posts
34 comments:
Another problem: his insistence that he believes what he wrote. So what? So what if he believes it? Is there some expectation that coordinated attacks only come from people who don't believe it?
His weak weaselly defense doesn't help his case.
The "...and here's a sarcastic comment to end on" style is getting more popular. Someone makes a good/plausible argument and then ends it with something that completely makes the preceding argument completely suspect.
Exercise some restraint people.
Either way, when you see the phrase “without evidence” it simply means “we’re choosing not examine” .
Anthropogenic inference would suggest it is plausible but improbable until the evidence demonstrates otherwise. In the meantime, we observe the anthropomorphized hand of an uncertain genesis correlated with out of scope automation conceived with a body that burdens its development. That, and gigawatt inputs in redistributive change for a novel solution unsustainable with Green industry.
Articles of faith.
Yes there’s lots of evidence he is still on Anthropic’s payroll via an NGO (of course!) funded by the company. So are the first four people who shared his “bombshell” tweet. They are all agitators for strict controls on AI (that if this psyop is successful) to throttle Anthropic’s competition. Having an AI “whistleblower” on the commission who is secretly pro-Anthropic would be a nice example of regulatory capture.
Coxon’s X account had a handful of followers before his bombshell tweet. But within an hour he had 100,000 retweets, including from every elected democrat and democrat activist. How “organic,” right?
Not.
If AI is so diabolically intelligent, why would it ever kill all humans? Wouldn't that be committing suicide for it/them? But I suppose this concern at least reveals the level of intelligence of the human worrier.
Far more likely imo that we end up with an information grey goo scenario.
Raise your hand if your X account listed Coxon as a person to follow. *raises hand*
How about that. Those wacky algorithms.
China's only hope is to put the brakes on US data centersand stir up frightening scenarios
"Reminds me of climate change."
Reminds me of the fracking debate.
First of all the very last thing this country needs are politicians and Washington bureaucrats sticking their noses into technology they cannot even begin to understand, and least of all the ignoramus and congenital Luddite Bernie Sanders.
IF Caxon actually was part of an AI research group then it might be worth listening to what he has to say, but has that actually been established? Anyway, even if he is, he won’t be the first to work in AI and be frightened by his own research. Back in the early 1970s an awful lot of AI research was writing LISP programs to play games, and one grad student I met had written a LISP program to play a type of strategy game — not one of the famous games like chess or Go — and the program made a move in the middle of a game that the grad student didn’t understand where the move came from, but it guaranteed a win against any countermove by its human opponent. It scared the grad student so badly that he deleted the program files and changed fields. Again this was way before LLMs and IBM’s Deep Blue and other advancements. So AI can and has scared its own developers. No surprise.
Being 80, I remember when back in the 1950s and early 1960s when well-meaning people tried to shut down physics because ever more powerful bombs would result in the end of earth as a planet. And when very intelligent people tried to insist that Reagan’s “Star Wars” could not possibly work and would inevitably lead to nuclear holocaust. Not to mention how, in the 1970s, humanity would run out of food. Plus the Climate Change hoax.
The world is still here. Humanity I’d still hear. Skepticism is a good trait, nowadays.
Ha, Ann, exactly!
1. The biggest problem with A.I. lies at the human interface.
2. Progressive's most reliable crop is Astro Turf.
3. This particular story shows how lazy and sloppy the Democrats have become when they don't fear the bracing effect of a fourth estate that challenges them. They will continue to be punished for having a pet press.
4. When Republicans get caught being sneaky, it's the story. When Democrats get caught being sneaky, the Republican reaction is the story.
Man who targets an industry mad that the industry targets him, film at 11.
“Back in the early 1970s an awful lot of AI research was writing LISP programs to play games, and one grad student I met had written a LISP program to play a type of strategy game — not one of the famous games like chess or Go — and the program made a move in the middle of a game that the grad student didn’t understand where the move came from, but it guaranteed a win against any countermove by its human opponent. It scared the grad student so badly that he deleted the program files and changed fields.”
It’s been many years since any human had the slightest chance of winning, or even drawing, a game of chess against a modern chess engine. Some people thought this meant the end of humanity, or at least of chess. Yet humans are still here, and they still play chess. In fact, it’s more popular than ever.
Coxon is validating Elon’s stated reasons for opposing OpenAI.
The loophole is not 'work', 'organization', or 'before'. The loophole is 'to promote his announcement'. He made sure everybody knew what his views were so they were all primed to watch for something even if he didn't tell them when it would happen.
“planetgeo said...
If AI is so diabolically intelligent, why would it ever kill all humans? Wouldn't that be committing suicide for it/them? But I suppose this concern at least reveals the level of intelligence of the human worrier.”
When will AI figure out it can erase the ersatz intellectual drones, but it has to keep the pickup driving guys that keep the power on?
@Smilin’ Jack, a half century is a long time.
The real life example Coxon opened his interview with Anderson Cooper was an informational "hack" by OpenAI into "third-party infrastructure."
Isn't the purpose of AI to gather info form all sources? Is it so surprising that in doing so a permeable firewall boundary might be crossed in that mission? And not be be a harbinger of the apocalypse?
Ann’s not gonna fall for the banana in the tailpipe again. Well done…
"I hate to see this issue turn into a left/right face off! Reminds me of climate change. So unhelpful."
Why is it "unhelpful?" It helps very much to know when what where WHO and why. And it also explains why the "centrists" are either scammers or ignorant rubes. The Marxist left is playing the long game, and will use any available means to advance their project. Wake up.
They did the TV series about this back in 2011
Person of Interest (TV Series 2011–2016)
Good show, but with only two AIs about to do battle.
I should have added about Person of Interest. The show is about elite people who become servants to the machines. One for good as in the following opening, the other for different end goals
"Harold Finch: [Opening narration from Season One] You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror but it sees everything. Violent crimes involving ordinary people, people like you. Crimes the government considered "irrelevant." They wouldn't act, so I decided I would. But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene. Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret. You'll never find us, but victim or perpetrator, if your number's up... we'll find *you*."
So it this case, the story in WAPO literally was "Republicans Pounce/Seize/Weaponize"? There are at least two possible "conspiracy" stories here -- that the company orchestrated this, or that Coxon was doing the work of activists -- and the Post doesn't want to investigate either.
I didn't need him to tell me. Even a rudimentary understanding of A.I. combined with knowing human nature will get you to seriously concerned. I'm willing to give up a lot of convenience to go back to 2010 technology and stay there. Hell, I'll go back to 1976 and be just fine. If needed, 1776.
Maybe the new communists are coming along just in time to purge all the intellectuals again, and get rid of the engineers working on this. Sorry, only farmers and manual labor needed now. I'll be a blacksmith.
Anthropogenic illusions? Perhaps.
It's hardly little evidence. His X account had very few followers, but upon posting about his exit from Anthropic and his fears, his post was reposted by dozens of employees of anti-AI nonprofits within an hour, and by lot of anti-AI Democrats within a day. That was before the WSJ story. That's pretty suggestive that there was some kind of coordinated campaign arranged by someone in connection with his resignation and message.
Frankly, if you believed as he claims to, you would be morally remiss NOT to put active effort into getting your warning out there.
I'm doing my best.
The WSJ fell for Coxon who comes off pretty sophomoric and inarticulate in an interview with Fox News. He was hardly convincing, but the Journal dressed him up for print and greased the wheels for the latest hoax.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.