91 points alex-moon 8 hours ago 51 comments
mjd 2 hours ago | parent
delichon 1 hour ago | parent
dan-bailey 1 hour ago | parent
jerf 1 hour ago | parent
You can see the effect all the down to something as small as 4 friends who have met once a month for 10 years eventually having to break up due to life getting in the way, and the feeling that not only is it going to be sad to not have these meetings any more but the feeling that there is some sort of almost-concrete entity that is somehow being hurt and needs to be defended, as if there is some obligation that has been created independent of the four participants that is being violated beyond the mere summation of four people's personal feelings. Humans build these structures readily and often defend them beyond what rationality may suggest.
lenerdenator 15 minutes ago | parent
What you're describing is a durable social system. Social systems are what humans evolved to survive. We're squishy, relatively weak, hairless apes that walk around on the ground. Alone, we're easy prey. Together, you get... well... gestures widely.
If you invest the time and energy into creating a social system, it's perfectly rational to keep it going as long as possible. Otherwise you expose yourself to more and more risk as you go through the world, and must expend more time and energy finding another one, if that's even possible. Before humans built larger societies, that could mean death.
kelseyfrog 49 minutes ago | parent
By what measures would other systems of social organization measure their success and why aren't we choosing them?
1. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-investigated-ourselves-and...
cestith 33 minutes ago | parent
ryandvm 48 minutes ago | parent
But yes, if a system fails to prioritize its continued existence, it doesn't matter what else it accomplishes, it will cease to exist as that system.
away0g 26 minutes ago | parent
chasd00 10 minutes ago | parent
but that's every economic model and every government model. That remark says nothing.
eithed 1 hour ago | parent
TYPE_FASTER 1 hour ago | parent
seanabrahams 1 hour ago | parent
pixl97 40 minutes ago | parent
Worse these AI systems are not in a universal island just affecting themselves, what they do affects us, what we do trains them and as the rate of progress continues to accelerate social structures are going to further destabilize (and they are already rapidly changing and strained). It is very likely we are going to see a world order rearrangement soon, much like the rapid changes in the early 1900s brought.
ActorNightly 1 hour ago | parent
Yep
More slop.
derektank 1 hour ago | parent
ForHackernews 50 minutes ago | parent
> More interestingly, our experiments also show that models trained on corrupted traces, whose intermediate reasoning steps bear no relation to the problem they accompany, achieve performance largely comparable to those trained on correct traces.
thefxperson 42 minutes ago | parent
Not an expert in LLMs, but this seems supported by the abstract of the paper cited in the above article:
it remains unclear to what extent these performance gains can be attributed to human-like task decomposition or simply the greater computation that additional tokens allow. [...] our results show that additional tokens can provide computational benefits independent of token choice. The fact that intermediate tokens can act as filler tokens raises concerns about large language models engaging in unauditable, hidden computations that are increasingly detached from the observed chain-of-thought tokens.
https://arxiv.org/html/2404.15758v1smallmancontrov 27 minutes ago | parent
If you want to see it yourself: load up Qwen 3.8 in LM Studio and watch the CoT stumble around like a drunken sailor before miraculously jumping to the correct result.
If you want an example of subversion, Anthropic has some good ones:
https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...
https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...
janalsncm 9 minutes ago | parent
But you don’t have to do that. You can skip straight to RL. If you do, the model will generate complete garbage reasoning traces before generating the correct answer. In fact, if you add a coherence reward to the reasoning trace, the model will perform worse (since you’re now diluting the correctness reward).
SillyUsername 50 minutes ago | parent
SillyUsername 42 minutes ago | parent
War? Wipeout everyone.
Famine? Wipeout everyone.
Disease? Wipeout everyone.
How long before a real AGI realises this as a long term solution?
An AGI could be doing this right now - the quietest way would be to control the birth rate and sterilise the population gradually, and then watch society collapse and pick off the survivors with less hidden means.
Sterilisation works with mosquitoes...
cowlevel 39 minutes ago | parent
pixl97 36 minutes ago | parent
christophilus 32 minutes ago | parent
lenerdenator 27 minutes ago | parent
Economic output has increased, but the value being delivered to the people doing the actual work has decreased. There's less durability of employment. People are more geographically mobile.
All of these generally make the idea of strapping yourself into taking care of a small human sound like a less enticing prospect. To a lot of people, a BC pill sounds a lot easier. Well, less risky, at least.
malfist 25 minutes ago | parent
kingleopold 20 minutes ago | parent
All poor people everywhere have more kids even today.
jansan 19 minutes ago | parent
Actually, the famous 'Mouse Utopia' experiment (Universe 25) arguably showed the exact opposite. The population collapsed despite abundance of food and water without any economic hardship.
epihelix 8 minutes ago | parent
And just in case you wanted data rather than anecdote:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertil...
Your world view is somewhat upside down!
pixl97 37 minutes ago | parent
Honestly we are doing this pretty well without AGI. Nearly world wide the birthrate has fallen below replacement rate. In places like Japan and Korea these are already critical problems in the medium term.
zeeveener 27 minutes ago | parent
away0g 27 minutes ago | parent
ant6n 23 minutes ago | parent
jyounker 19 minutes ago | parent
chasd00 18 minutes ago | parent
superxpro12 15 minutes ago | parent
reducesuffering 39 minutes ago | parent
All this is, understandably, frustrating and confusing for anyone trying to understand just how scared to be."
Meanwhile it links to an article stating: "The closest thing to a public debate about the existential threat of AI is surveys of AI researchers. The most recent, published last week, asked 1,580 researchers what probability they put on AI causing human extinction — or a permanent, severe loss of human control, which is not the same outcome. The median was about 10%, up from 5% two years ago. The middle half of the responses ran from 1% to 25%, and 12% said zero."
Personally if half of AI researchers have 1-25% chance all humans being massacred or having zero agency over our lives, and only 12% of them think there's no chance, I would be very worried!
hackeraccount 29 minutes ago | parent
soperj 26 minutes ago | parent
Also it would be 78% if it were.[0]
[0] - based on 2024 stats
jefb 8 minutes ago | parent
jdb9001 4 minutes ago | parent