Today's newspaper had a section about how AI should be considered a societal risk, with statements from creators of these large language models.<p>> Executives from top artificial intelligence companies have warned that the technology they are building should be considered a societal risk on a par with “pandemics and nuclear wars,” according to a 22-word statement from the Center for AI Safety that was signed by more than 350 executives, researchers and engineers.<p>> Eventually, some believe, A.I. could become powerful enough that it could create societal-scale disruptions within a few years if nothing is done to slow it down. Those fears are shared by numerous industry leaders, putting them in the unusual position of arguing that a technology they are building poses grave risks and should be regulated more tightly.<p>I don't understand how these exes are leading these conversations, as they are responsible creating these products with potential harms in the first place.
As to why A.I. is being held up as a threat, well tracking and loss of privacy should be top of the list due to the threat of over analysing the population and acting on the data. But IMO at the moment there is a push on behalf of <i>whomever</i> to try and put A.I. back in the bottle ... for a time at least ... but anyone half smart knows most of the companies already involved, will be working overtime to make it such that when it was allowed back out, it would be a controlled product, purposely hard for the average user to get information and help easy, without paying much money.<p>For a real end of a person's existence ... if one was to give A.I. the ability to <i>push the button</i> or control traffic or any scenario it was in control where if something small could go wrong resulting in death ... there's always the possibility for it to be abused.<p>Presently I think a case could <i>easily</i> be made that the present piss poor web search results available to the general public, are more of a threat to humanity.<p>Poorer education levels are more likely the bigger threat to humanity though.
><i>I don't understand how these exes are leading these conversations, as they are responsible creating these products with potential harms in the first place.</i><p>They're basically trying to form a consortium, hoping to create an environment for AI labs and regulators to mitigate the dangers of AI. I suggest you go to their website. Their mission and reasons are stated there.<p>For example, one of the core ideas is that AI labs are competing in a high stakes race, and many of them will do dangerous things with AI in order to try to come out on top. This consortium is trying to prevent this sort of thing.
> "I don't understand how these exes are leading these conversations, as they are responsible creating these products with potential harms in the first place."<p>Imagine a caveman figured out how to make fire. Their tribe sees how they can use it against their enemy tribes or to clear brush or whatever. They decide to hold a meeting to discuss the fire and how to not let it burn down their own village or their whole forest. Probably the guy who figured out how to make it would be involved in that meeting.
Q: "What is the A.I.’s existential threat to humanity?"<p>A: a scam. The existential threat is us, see <a href="https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/you-are-all-getting-this-stop-ai" rel="nofollow">https://mfioretti.substack.com/p/you-are-all-getting-this-st...</a>
Concerns: Some argue that A.I. is improving so rapidly that it has already surpassed human performance in some areas, and that it will soon surpass it in others.
The danger is induced by the possibility that AI will surpass the humans in a few years leading to disruptions in working and personal life.
Then, the whole economy needs to be overthrown and alternatives for taxes and such needs to be found. This endangers the social communities imho. One solution could be to tax upon the work, not the salaries of workers.<p>Also, if one takes a closer look who is saying that.. of course, a lot of people, but the Execs say it (or sign letters to halt the development) just because of they securing their stakes.<p>Big companies will get rid of new actors entering the market by laying strict rules upon new actors, that will slow down development and hold new ones viable, but for themselves, they need just to change their technologies.<p>The ones who sign letters to stop development for a year are keen to develop their own and are in need to slow down the big competitors. Elon Musk, f.e.<p>So, it's a danger, but Internet was for some actors in the beginning, too, a big danger;)