Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Charter

blog.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 183 posts

Re: OpenAI Charter

#51

Post by dsacco »

s1dechnl wrote: post #45
shmageggy wrote: post #16

I appreciate that they are committed to AI safety, but I'm afraid that researchers have little to no power to, in their words: > avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. AI and technical progress in general already disproportionately serve the rich, as they are drivers of wealth disparity, and I see no reason why better AI won't follow the same trend. Unfortunately, any changes…

They [each individual development group] has power over their own funded development and work. Anyone working on this problem sincerely values AI safety and its a component of developing and securing the foundations of AGI. An out of control, unpredictable and sloppy system is not intelligent or desired. Such a system would not be considered AGI or an achievement. So, it is natural for any developer to identify issue…

Could you summarize your point more concisely? As written this seems to be a stream of disconnected thoughts that are basically entirely unsubstantiated.

Re: OpenAI Charter

#52

Post by s1dechnl »

dsacco wrote: post #40
iooi wrote: post #13

> We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. Wouldn't it be much more likely that a non-value-aligned project comes close first? Wouldn't the Google/Apple/Microsofts of the w…

Yes, it's pretty hard to take that line seriously. At minimum it's very charitable framing, considering there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.

Agreed but it is such lines that bring in the $$$ in the valley. At some point, humanity has to cut the fluff and games and get to the fundamentals so we can all rise much higher heights of our collective intelligence. It's very hard to do so when you're constantly bombarded with crafty agenda based language on a day-to-day basis.

> there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close. This is the clear reality. So why do certain human beings pretend otherwise? Why does this pretentious game garner the most funding?Why do human beings spend so much time manipulating and hyping things into over-stated valuations when it ultimately results in wasted resources, time, and potential for the collective?

Re: OpenAI Charter

#53

Post by FeepingCreature »

heurist wrote: post #47
otoburb wrote: post #2

>> "We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that _safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future_, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research." This seems like the key disclosure statement. I never reconciled how sharing A[G]I te…

I disagree with the premise. AI isn't like a nuclear warhead. It's not a machine for pure destruction. AI can be used as much to generate welfare as to damage - it's all in the application. Sharing methods benefits at least as much as it could hurt.

I think it can be used as much to generate welfare as destruction when it goes right, but the cases where it goes wrong are both plentiful and heavily biased towards destruction.

Re: OpenAI Charter

#54

Post by dsacco »

s1dechnl wrote: post #52
dsacco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's pretty hard to take that line seriously. At minimum it's very charitable framing, considering there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.

Agreed but it is such lines that bring in the $$$ in the valley. At some point, humanity has to cut the fluff and games and get to the fundamentals so we can all rise much higher heights of our collective intelligence. It's very hard to do so when you're constantly bombarded with crafty agenda based language on a day-to-day basis. > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (v…

No offense intended, but I don't think you and I are actually agreeing on anything. I can't really take your comments in this thread seriously.

Re: OpenAI Charter

#55

Post by bra-ket »

all your "requests for research" are very narrow and formulated as specialized deep learning problems, basically enforcing a particular solution

If you're serious about AGI broaden the scope (e.g. along the lines of DARPA's open-ended RFPs)

Re: OpenAI Charter

#56

Post by s1dechnl »

throwawayjava wrote: post #19
iooi wrote: post #13

> We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. Wouldn't it be much more likely that a non-value-aligned project comes close first? Wouldn't the Google/Apple/Microsofts of the w…

What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.

This is what always amazed me about the AI safety groups... and mission statements for funding therein : There is nothing to suggest the minds and efforts capable of producing AGI will not have solved this at a fundamental level. Absolutely nothing... and after-all something of high intelligence is within controlled and reasoned states. If someone declared they created AGI and it was behind a door and when that door was opened you saw a robot manically trashing the place, you'd clearly laugh.

Re: OpenAI Charter

#57

Post by s1dechnl »

dsacco wrote: post #51
s1dechnl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They [each individual development group] has power over their own funded development and work. Anyone working on this problem sincerely values AI safety and its a component of developing and securing the foundations of AGI. An out of control, unpredictable and sloppy system is not intelligent or desired. Such a system would not be considered AGI or an achievement. So, it is natural for any developer to identify issue…

Could you summarize your point more concisely? As written this seems to be a stream of disconnected thoughts that are basically entirely unsubstantiated.

You stated it yourself in post : > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. > Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.

In summary : > No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details > People who claim they would have to engage in vague mental gymnastics and mission statements to try to convince people of the illogical. > Those who develop AGI will of course address the safety problem internally to ensure their product is a success > They wont be include outside competitors/consortiums who will of course exploit and use the intellectual property they are exposed to for their competitive advantage

The software industry is the software industry. Intellectual property is paramount. Nothing has changed. Google isn't giving 100% access to their source code or data sets. Microsoft isn't open sourcing all of their code.. etc etc. Suggesting that a new comer should for 'safety' reasons is a manipulative 'think of the kids' FUD argument.

Re: OpenAI Charter

#58

Post by dsacco »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #53
heurist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with the premise. AI isn't like a nuclear warhead. It's not a machine for pure destruction. AI can be used as much to generate welfare as to damage - it's all in the application. Sharing methods benefits at least as much as it could hurt.

I think it can be used as much to generate welfare as destruction when it goes right , but the cases where it goes wrong are both plentiful and heavily biased towards destruction.

What are a few examples of those cases, exactly?

Re: OpenAI Charter

#59

Post by dsacco »

s1dechnl wrote: post #57
dsacco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you summarize your point more concisely? As written this seems to be a stream of disconnected thoughts that are basically entirely unsubstantiated.

You stated it yourself in post : > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. > Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close. In summary : > No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details > People who claim they w…

> No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details

This is what I'm talking about when I say "unsubstantiated." Do you recognize that this claim isn't true a priori?

Re: OpenAI Charter

#60

Post by gone35 »

dsacco wrote: post #36
s1dechnl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved. Those who've stated otherwise or with much verbiage eventually arrive at this obvious state. Therefore, publications up until now under the banner of 'AGI' have largely been insignificant in terms of their capability to achieve the core technological aspects…

> No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I'm in my right mind; I guess that depends on definition, doesn't it?

Wow; I would strongly recommend you to re-think your position! Think of it in terms of, e.g., gain-of-function research in virology (cf. [1]).

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

Post reply on HN