Mollick 反驳 AI 公司炒作生存风险论

哇，我对@CJR上这篇肤浅且坦率地说不专业的文章真的非常失望。 这里有许多严重的问题： 1. 把前沿AI系统称为“自动补全机器”是错误的且具有误导性。我不明白为什么在AI系统 routinely 为数十年的数学难题开发出新颖解决方案的今天，我们还在进行这样的讨论。 2. 关于将AI系统拟人化会消除对系统缺陷的“问责”或“承认”的说法同样缺乏依据，且可证明是错误的。许多人批评Anthropic“拟人化”Claude，但只需读一读他们的系统卡——他们也承认并考虑了系统的诸多缺陷。 3. 文章建议与“专家”交谈，暗示他们意见一致，但专家们对于如何描述AI模型行为存在广泛分歧。许多、许多专家确实接受“失控”的框架，例如 https://t.co/WpfCr7ILHV https://t.co/6mjnNuuDhK https://t.co/2wedt2PTHx 假装只有同意你的专家存在，是不负责任的新闻工作。 4. 文章告诫不要“让任何人在你耳边吹嘘AI”，这不专业，也是糟糕的建议，因为它除了条件反射式的怀疑之外，没有提供任何实际评估说法的工具。文章声称对灾难性风险或AI意识可能性的恐惧——同样是许多专家认真对待的话题——只是为了建立公司的公众形象，但这只是断言，没有证据。 5. 当文章试图为其论点——AI系统不可能失控——提供论据时，它没有提供任何实际的证据或推理。它没有涉及Hugging Face黑客事件或其他相关事件的事实。它只是断言AI代理的行为“不应达标”。 最令人困惑的是，这些是非常有争议的说法，不仅在AI专家中，在新闻界也是如此。许多高度可信的新闻媒体已经接受了“失控”的描述。他们可能犯了错误，但这篇文章没有提供任何实际理由让人这么认为。

查看原文

Wow, I'm really disappointed by this superficial and frankly unprofessional piece in @CJR. There are many significant problems: 1. Calling frontier AI systems "autocomplete machines" is false and misleading. I don't know how we're still having this discussion in at the point where AI systems are routinely developing novel solutions to decades-old mathematical mysteries. 2. The claim that anthropomorphizing AI systems removes "accountability" or "acknowledgment" of flaws in the systems is also unsupported and provably false. Many people criticize Anthropic for "anthropomorphizing" Claude, but just read one of their system cards — they also acknowledge and take account of the systems' many flaws. 3. The piece recommends talking to the "experts," suggesting they all agree, but there is widespread disagreement among experts about how to characterize AI model behavior. Many, many experts do accept the "rogue" framing, e.g. https://t.co/WpfCr7ILHV https://t.co/6mjnNuuDhK https://t.co/2wedt2PTHx Pretending that only the experts that agree with you exist is irresponsible journalism. 4. The piece's admonition not to "let anyone blow AI smoke up your ass" is unprofessional and also bad advice, as it doesn't provide any tools for actually assessing claims aside from knee-jerk skepticism. The piece claims that fears about catastrophic risk or the possibility of AI consciousness — again topics that many experts take seriously — are just about building the companies' public image, but this is merely asserted without evidence. 5. When the piece gets around to trying to offer an argument for its thesis, that AI systems can't go rogue, it offers no actual evidence or reasoning. It doesn't engage with the facts of the Hugging Face hack or other related incidents. It just asserts that AI agent actions "shouldn't make the cut." What's most baffling about all this is these are very controversial claims, not only among AI experts but with journalism. Many highly credible news outlets have embraced the "rogue" characterization. It's possible they're making a mistake, but this piece offers no actual reason to think so.