Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

deepmind.com

211–220 of 345 posts

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#211
post #182

(Former AI researcher / founder here) It always surprises me at the ease at which people jump on a) imminent AGI and b) human extinction in the face of AGI. Would love for someone to correct me / add information here to the contrary. Generalist here just refers to a "multi-faceted agent" vs "General" like AGI. For a) - I see 2 main blockers, 1) A way to build second/third order reasoning systems that rely on intuitio…

I am quite scared of human extinction in the face of AGI. I certainly didn't jump on it, though! I was gradually convinced by the arguments that Yudkowsky makes in "Rationality: from AI to Zombies" ( https://www.readthesequences.com/ ). Unfortunately they don't fit easily into an internet comment. Some of the points that stood out to me, though: - We are social animals, and take for granted that, all else being equal…

The human extinction due to would be "hard takeoff" of an AGI should be understood as a thought experiment, conceived in a specific age when the current connectionist paradigm wasn't yet mainstream. The AI crisis was expected to come from some kind of "hard universal algorithmic artificial intelligence", for example AIXItl undergoing a very specific process of runaway self-optimization.

Current-generation systems aka large connectionist models trained via gradient descent simply don't work like that: they are large, heavy, continuous, the optimization process giving rise to them does so in smooth iterative manner. Before hypothetical "evil AI" there will be thousands of iterations of "goofy and obviously erroneously evil AI", with enough time to take some action. And even then, current systems including this one are more often than not trained with predictive objective, which is very different compared to usually postulated reinforcement learning objective. Systems trained with prediction objective shouldn't be prone to becoming agents, much less dangerous ones.

If you read Scott's blog, you should remember the prior post where he himself pointed that out.

In my honest opinion, unaccountable AGI owners pose multiple OOM more risk than alignment failure of a hypothetical AI trying to predict next token.

We should think more about the Human alignment problem.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#212
post #182

(Former AI researcher / founder here) It always surprises me at the ease at which people jump on a) imminent AGI and b) human extinction in the face of AGI. Would love for someone to correct me / add information here to the contrary. Generalist here just refers to a "multi-faceted agent" vs "General" like AGI. For a) - I see 2 main blockers, 1) A way to build second/third order reasoning systems that rely on intuitio…

I am quite scared of human extinction in the face of AGI. I certainly didn't jump on it, though! I was gradually convinced by the arguments that Yudkowsky makes in "Rationality: from AI to Zombies" ( https://www.readthesequences.com/ ). Unfortunately they don't fit easily into an internet comment. Some of the points that stood out to me, though: - We are social animals, and take for granted that, all else being equal…

Regarding the substack article, why isn't this the principle of optimality for Bellman equations on infinite time horizons?

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#213
post #182

(Former AI researcher / founder here) It always surprises me at the ease at which people jump on a) imminent AGI and b) human extinction in the face of AGI. Would love for someone to correct me / add information here to the contrary. Generalist here just refers to a "multi-faceted agent" vs "General" like AGI. For a) - I see 2 main blockers, 1) A way to build second/third order reasoning systems that rely on intuitio…

I am quite scared of human extinction in the face of AGI. I certainly didn't jump on it, though! I was gradually convinced by the arguments that Yudkowsky makes in "Rationality: from AI to Zombies" ( https://www.readthesequences.com/ ). Unfortunately they don't fit easily into an internet comment. Some of the points that stood out to me, though: - We are social animals, and take for granted that, all else being equal…

AI can’t have goals since the universe is logically meaningless.

Our desire for purpose is a delusion.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#214
Is this the first reveal of the name Gato? It is the first I’ve heard of it and it definitely sounds like more of a murder bot than a C-3PO :)

I know this is not as important as the AGI question, but I do think the branding matters as much as the attitude of the creators. They seem to be making a generalist agent to see if they can. Gato is a clear name for that: utilitarian and direct. If it was called Sunshine or Gift I suspect the goal would be more helpful to humanity.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not you specifically, but I honestly don't understand how positive many in this community (or really anyone at all) can be about these news. Tim Urban's article explicitly touches on the risk of human extinction, not to mention all the smaller-scale risks from weaponized AI. Have we made any progress on preventing this? Or is HN mostly happy with deprecating humanity because our replacement has more teraflops? Even t…

> Or is HN mostly happy with deprecating humanity because our replacement has more teraflops? If we manage to make a 'better' replacement for ourselves, is it actually a bad thing? Our cousin's on the hominoid family tree are all extinct, yet we don't consider that a mistake. AI made by us could well make us extinct. Is that a bad thing?

> If we manage to make a 'better' replacement for ourselves, is it actually a bad thing?

It's bad for all the humans alive at the time. Do you want to be replaced and have your life cut short? For that matter, why should something better replace us instead of coexist? We don't think killing off all other animals would be a good thing.

> Our cousin's on the hominoid family tree are all extinct, yet we don't consider that a mistake.

It's just how evolution played out. But if there was another hominid still alive along side us, advocating for it's extinction because we're a bit smarter would be considered genocidal and deeply wrong.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There it is. The person who think human minds are python programs doing linear algebra.

There's no evidence otherwise. You have to believe that the mind has a materialist basis or else you believe in woo woo magic.

There's evidence everywhere, every second of every day. It doesn't follow from the mind having a material basis that it is doing linear algebra calculations like a Python machine learning program. That's quite a leap.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment summarizes what I worry might be a more widespread opinion than I expected. If you think that human extinction is a fair price to pay for creating a supercomputer, then our value systems are so incompatible that I really don't know what to say. I guess I wouldn't have been so angry about any of this before I had children, but now I'm very much in favor of prolonged human existence.

> I'm very much in favor of prolonged human existence. Serious question - why?

Why should general intelligence continue to survive? You are placing a human value on continued existence.

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not you specifically, but I honestly don't understand how positive many in this community (or really anyone at all) can be about these news. Tim Urban's article explicitly touches on the risk of human extinction, not to mention all the smaller-scale risks from weaponized AI. Have we made any progress on preventing this? Or is HN mostly happy with deprecating humanity because our replacement has more teraflops? Even t…

> Or is HN mostly happy with deprecating humanity because our replacement has more teraflops? If we manage to make a 'better' replacement for ourselves, is it actually a bad thing? Our cousin's on the hominoid family tree are all extinct, yet we don't consider that a mistake. AI made by us could well make us extinct. Is that a bad thing?

We have Neanderthal, Denisovan DNA (and two more besides). Our cousins are not exactly extinct - we are a blend of them. Sure no pure strains exist, but we are not a pure strain either!

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#219
post #5

I’m not sure how to word my excitement about the progress we see in AI research in the last years. If you haven’t read it, give Tim Urbans classic piece a slice of your attention: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revol... It’s a very entertaining read from a couple of years ago (I think I’ve read it in 2017), and man, have things happened in the field since then. If feels like things truly start…

That human intelligence might just be token prediction evolving from successive small bit-width float matrix transformations is depressing to me.

Is that what biologists or neuroscientists think the nervous system is actually doing?

Re: DeepMind: A Generalist Agent

#220
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am quite scared of human extinction in the face of AGI. I certainly didn't jump on it, though! I was gradually convinced by the arguments that Yudkowsky makes in "Rationality: from AI to Zombies" ( https://www.readthesequences.com/ ). Unfortunately they don't fit easily into an internet comment. Some of the points that stood out to me, though: - We are social animals, and take for granted that, all else being equal…

AI can’t have goals since the universe is logically meaningless. Our desire for purpose is a delusion.

Goals in the context of AI aren’t the type of thing you’re arguing against here. AI can absolutely have goals — sometimes in multiple senses at the same time, if they’re e.g. soccer AIs. Other times it might be a goal of “predict the next token” or “maximise score in Atari game”, but it’s still a goal, even without philosophical baggage about e.g. the purpose of life.

Those goals aren’t necessarily best achieved by humanity continuing to exist.

(I don’t know how to even begin to realistically calculate the probability of a humanity-ending outcome, before you ask).

Post reply on HN