AI shouldn’t make ‘life-or-death’ decisions, says OpenAI’s Sam Altman

██████████@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 198 points – AI shouldn’t make ‘life-or-death’ decisions, says OpenAI’s Sam Altman | CNN Business
cnn.com

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, speaks at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

50

deleted

Worldcoin, founded by US tech entrepreneur Sam Altman, offers free crypto tokens to people who agree to have their eyeballs scanned.

What a perfect sentence to sum up 2023 with.

Mr Altman, who founded Open AI which built chat bot ChatGPT, says he hopes the initiative will help confirm if someone is a human or a robot.

That last line kinda creeps me out.

deleted

Yeah that's most most sci-fi dystopian article I've read in a while.

The line where one of the people waiting to get their eyes scanned is well eye opening " I don't care what they do with the data, I just want the money", this is why they want us poor, so we need money so badly that we will impatiently hand over everything that makes us.

But we already happily hand over our DNA genome to private corporations, so what's an eye scan gonna do......

That's why they just removed the military limitations in their terms of service I guess...

I also want to sell my shit for every purpose but take zero responsibility for consequences.

Shouldn't, but there's absolutely nothing stopping it, and lazy tech companies absolutely will. I mean we live in a world where Boeing built a plane that couldn't fly straight so they tried to fix it with software. The tech will be abused so long as people are greedy.

So long as people are rewarded for being greedy. Greedy and awful people will always exist, but the issue is in allowing them to control how things are run.

More than just that, they're shielded from repercussions. The execs involved with ignoring all the safety concerns should be in jail right now for manslaughter. They knew better and gambled with other people's lives.

They fixed it with software and then charged extra for the software safety feature. It wasn’t until the planes started falling out of the sky that they decided they would gracefully offer it for free.

Has anyone checked on the sister?

OpenAI went from interesting to horrifying so quickly, I just can't look.

I’m tired of dopey white men making the world so much worse.

OpenAI went from an interesting and insightful company to a horrible and a weird one in a very little time.

People only thought it was the former before they actually learned anything about them. They were always this way.

Remember when they were saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release because people might use it to create fake news or articles about topics people commonly Google?

Hah, good times.

Agreed, but also one doomsday-prepping capitalist shouldn't be making AI decisions. If only there was some kind of board that would provide safeguards that ensured AI was developed for the benefit of humanity rather than profit...

I am sure Zergerberg is also claiming that they are not making any life-or-death decisions. Lets see you in a couple years when the military gets involved with your shit. Oh wait they already did but I guess they will just use AI to improve soldiers' canteen experience.

But it should drive cars? Operate strike drones? Manage infrastructure like power grids and the water supply? Forecast tsunamis?

Too little too late, Sam. 

Yes on everything but drone strikes.

A computer would be better than humans in those scenarios. Especially driving cars, which humans are absolutely awful at.

So if it looks like it’s going to crash, should it automatically turn off and go “Lol good luck” to the driver now suddenly in charge of the life-and-death situation?

I'm not sure why you think that's how they would work.

Well it's simple, who do you think should make the life or death decision?

The computer, of course.

A properly designed autonomous vehicle would be polling data from hundreds of sensors hundreds/thousands of times per second. A human's reaction speed is 0.2 seconds, which is a hell of a long time in a crash scenario.

It has a way better chance of a 'life' outcome than a human who's either unaware of the potential crash, or is in fight or flight mode and making (likely wrong) reactions based on instinct.

Again, humans are absolutely terrible at operating giant hunks of metal that go fast. If every car on the road was autonomous, then crashes would be extremely rare.

Are there any pedestrians in your perfectly flowing grid?

Again, a computer can react faster than a human can, which means the car can detect a human and start reacting before a human even notices the pedestrian.

Plus, there will be far fewer variables when humans aren't allowed to drive outside of race tracks and the like. Reason why fully AI cars are a bad idea right now is because of all the chaotic human drivers that react in nonsensical ways. e.g. Pedestrian steps out. Thing that makes sense is for the AI to stop the car. But then the driver behind them decides to swerve around and blare the horn, then see the pedestrian, freak, turn into the AI car, and an accident is caused. Without the human drivers, then all the vehicles can communicate with each other and all of them can react in appropriate ways, adjusting how they drive up to miles back

deleted

Teslas aren't self driving cars.

deleted

Well, yes. Elon Musk is a liar. Teslas are by no means fully autonomous vehicles.

deleted

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc. Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^

2 more...

So just like shitty biased algorithms shouldn't be making life changing decisions on folks' employability, loan approvals, which areas get more/tougher policing, etc. I like stating obvious things, too. A robot pulling the trigger isn't the only "life-or-death" choice that will be (is!) automated.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

ChatGPT is one of several generative AI systems that can create content in response to user prompts and which experts say could transform the global economy.

But there are also dystopian fears that AI could destroy humanity or, at least, lead to widespread job losses.

AI is a major focus of this year’s gathering in Davos, with multiple sessions exploring the impact of the technology on society, jobs and the broader economy.

In a report Sunday, the International Monetary Fund predicted that AI will affect almost 40% of jobs around the world, “replacing some and complementing others,” but potentially worsening income inequality overall.

Speaking on the same panel as Altman, moderated by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff said AI was not at a point of replacing human beings but rather augmenting them.

As an example, Benioff cited a Gucci call center in Milan that saw revenue and productivity surge after workers started using Salesforce’s AI software in their interactions with customers.

The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Ummm…no fucking shit. Who was thinking that was a good idea?

probably about half of the executives this guy talks to

Fair enough. I do think AI will become a valuable tool for doctors, etc who do make those decisions

Using AI to base a decision on, is different from letting it make decisions

When there's no human to blame because the robot made the decision the ceo should carry all the blame

We've been putting our lives in the hands of automated, programmed decisions for decades now if y'all haven't noticed. The traffic light that keeps you from getting T-boned. The autopilot that keeps your plane straight and level and takes workload off the pilots. The scissor lift that prevents you from raising the platform if it's too tilted. The airbag making a nanosecond-level decision on whether to deploy or not. And many more.