#AI#OpenAI#AGI#EffectiveAltruism#EffectiveAccelerationism: "This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:"
The brilliant Molly White (@molly0xfff) has given us the best coverage of the scam-ridden cryptocurrency "marketplace" -- a public service in a time when tech journalism resembles fanzines.
In a new piece, she turns her attention to deeply unattractive but central tenets of Silicon Valley's current mania, AI.
Last week's spectacular #OpenAI soap-opera hijacked the attention of millions of normal, productive people and nonsensually crammed them full of the fine details of the debate between #EffectiveAltruism (#doomers) and #EffectiveAccelerationism (AKA e/acc), a genuinely absurd debate that was allegedly at the center of the drama.
The "effective altruism" and "effective accelerationism" ideologies that have been cropping up in AI debates are just a thin veneer over the typical blend of Silicon Valley techno-utopianism, inflated egos, and greed. Let's try something else.
Both effective altruism and effective accelerationism embrace as a given the idea of a super-powerful artificial general intelligence being just around the corner, an assumption that leaves little room for discussion of the many ways that AI is harming real people today.
Effective accelerationism has found an ally in Marc Andreessen, but his recent manifesto exposes that he just wants to go back to the old days when tech founders were uncritically revered, and when obstacles between him and staggering profits were nearly nonexistent.
#LessWrong-ism leads to thinking GPTs get more creative when they're hot. #WisdomAccelerationism (a play on #EffectiveAccelerationism or maybe just #Accelerationism - taking either one seriously enough to fix it by substituting 'wisdom' is a little concerning, especially given the apparent belief that GPTs are 'creative.')