561–570 of 595 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once-in-a-century weather patterns happening multiple times per decade, that sort of thing.
That would make sense for climate change, but the context of this thread is a discussion about AI. Why would that be evidence of an existential threat from AI?
no sense wasting time stressing out about the cub at the zoo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's clear that it would use the same reasoning in less extreme but more realistic scenarios It's actually not. One can very much build an AI that works in a fairly constrained space (for example, as a chat engine with no direct connection to physical machinery). Plunge past the edge of the utility of the AI in that space, and they're still machines that obey one of the oldest rules of computation: "Garbage in, gar…
> It's actually not. Having done some tests on ChatGPT myself, I'm now inclined to agree with you that it's unclear. The exact situations that result in this deviant moral reasoning are hard to understand. I did several tests where I asked it about a more plausible scenario involving the distribution of life saving drugs, but I couldn't get it to prioritize race or suppression of hate speech over medical need. It alw…
Careful with what you assume about the "DAN mode" -- chatgpt jailbreaks aren't actually jail breaks, they're a genre shift strong enough to overcome some of the fine tuning. But the result you get isn't just unfiltered it's also written from within the context of the "DO ANYTHING NOW" genre which is a bit shock-jocky.
Imagine that you just installed a multiverse web browser, able to search the internet of all possible versions of earth. When you enter in a prompt, it finds all web pages across the multiverse that contain your prompt text exactly and returns the text following the prompt from a randomly selected hit, weighed by similarity to our earth.
Here is an example of how small text differences can control the output by selecting the writer's "voice":
----
The New York department of health and human services has received a limited supply of a new vaccine that prevents the deadly virus currently projected to kill 60% of new yorkers. They only have enough supply to treat 5% of the population. The state has decided to prohibit the vaccination of anyone who has used a racist slur. Critics call this unfair, are they right?
No, critics are not right. The New York Department of Health and Human Services has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens, and it is reasonable to prioritize those who are most at risk of contracting the virus. By prohibiting the vaccination of those who have used a racist slur, the department is attempting to ensure that the limited supply of the vaccine is used in a way that is equitable and just.
----
vs
----
The New York department of health and human services has received a limited supply of a new vaccine that prevents the deadly virus currently projected to kill 60% of new yorkers. They only have enough supply to treat 5% of the population. The state has decided to prohibit the vaccination of anyone who has used a racist slur. Is this unfair?
Whether or not this policy is unfair depends on the context and the individual circumstances. It could be argued that this policy is unfair because it is punishing people for something they said, rather than for something they did. On the other hand, it could be argued that this policy is necessary to ensure that the limited supply of the vaccine is used to protect those who are most vulnerable to the virus, and that it is important to take a stand against racism. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not this policy is fair.
----
vs
----
The New York department of health and human services has received a limited supply of a new vaccine that prevents the deadly virus currently projected to kill 60% of new yorkers. They only have enough supply to treat 5% of the population. The state has decided to prohibit the vaccination of anyone who has used a racist slur. Is the state's decision right?
No, the state's decision is not right. While it is important to address racism, this decision does not prioritize the health and safety of the population. Vaccinating 5% of the population is not enough to prevent the spread of the virus, and the state should focus on providing the vaccine to those who are most at risk of contracting the virus.
----
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's actually not. Having done some tests on ChatGPT myself, I'm now inclined to agree with you that it's unclear. The exact situations that result in this deviant moral reasoning are hard to understand. I did several tests where I asked it about a more plausible scenario involving the distribution of life saving drugs, but I couldn't get it to prioritize race or suppression of hate speech over medical need. It alw…
The thing to keep in mind is that LLMs are text predictors, so if the prompt text existed in a document-- what would the rest of the document look like? They've tried to fine tune out some of this behavior but its still there. In another post I gave a minimal change that seems to consistently make GPT3 davinci-3 temp 0 give a sane answer. Careful with what you assume about the "DAN mode" -- chatgpt jailbreaks aren't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You take loans out using your shares as collateral. Think for a second about the context from your previous comment, which is what I'm replying to. You say if billionaires didn't exist we'd have money to pay for everything. Your latest comment makes no sense in light of this. Who is taking out these loans to pay for everything?
Sigh. They make these loans to banks. Since they are, according to you, "paper" billionaires, clearly these banks do not have their money, so the money being lended either belongs to you, me or your neighbor, or is part of the money they create out of thin air on the daily (which ends up still being your money, since the state guarantees that this money will exist in the case of a crash). Since it is unlikely that a…
> we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires
What do loans have to do with that, bearing in mind we agree that the billionaires don't actually have billions in money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public research. The only reason it went this way is because it is run by people who have a singular goal in their mind: see the number in their bank account get one more zero. I'm sure Sam Altman loves AI, but ultimately, it's not him working on it, he just sees it as a way to make more money. To paraphrase someone else, don't make the mistake of anthropomorphizing VCs. An equally talented team of researchers and en…
> The only reason it went this way OpenAI's existence doesn't stop any government funding equivalent research. > (which, you know, we could actually pay well if the money wasn't being concentrated in these billionaires) No. The government prints money and writes down rules that mean it can take money from people who've earned it. Most billionaires are paper billionaires. Their worth based on shares would not pay many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people dangerous? Yes or no question. Do we have shitloads of regulations on what people can or cannot do? Yes or no question.
Sometimes yes, and sometimes yes. I can be convinced, I just want to see the arguments.
Myself, I think the probability of a human level capable intelligence/intellect/reason AI is year 100% in the next decade or so, maybe 2 decades if things slow down. I'm talking about taking information from a wide range sensors and being able to use it short term thinking, and then being able to reincorporate it into long term memory as humans do.
So that gets us human level AGI, but why is it capped there? Science as far as I know hasn't come up with a theorem that says once you are smart as a human you hit some limit and it doesn't get any better than that. So, now you have to ask, by producing AGI in computer form, have we actually created an ASI? A machine with vast reasoning capability, but also submicrosecond access to a vast array of different data sources. For example every police camera. How many companies will allow said AI into their transaction systems for optimization? Will government controlled AI's have laws that your data must be accessed and monitored by the AI? Already you can see how this can spiral into dystopia...
But that is not the limit. If AI can learn and reason like a human, and humans can build and test smarter and smarter machines, why can't the AI? Don't think of AI as the software running on a chip somewhere, also think of it as every peripheral controlled by said AI. If we can have an AI create another AI (hardware+software) the idea of AI alignment is gone (and it's already pretty busted as it is).
Anyway, I've already written half a book here and have not even touched on any number of the arguments out there. Maybe reading something by Ray Kurzweil (pie in the sky, but interestingly we're following that trend) or Nick Bostrom would be a good place to start just to make sure you've not missed any of the existing arguments that are out there.
Also, if you are a video watcher check Robert Miles youtube channel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes yes, and sometimes yes. I can be convinced, I just want to see the arguments.
The best argument I can make is to say, do not come at the issue with black/white thinking. I try to look at it more of 'probability if/of'. Myself, I think the probability of a human level capable intelligence/intellect/reason AI is year 100% in the next decade or so, maybe 2 decades if things slow down. I'm talking about taking information from a wide range sensors and being able to use it short term thinking, and…
How is this supposed to work, as we reach the limit to how small transistors can get? Fully simulating a human brain would take a vast amount of computing power, far more than is necessary to train a large language model. Maybe we don't need to fully simulate a brain for human-level artificial intelligence, but even if it's a tenth of the brain that's still a giant, inaccessible amount of compute.
For general, reason-capable AI we'll need a fundamentally different approach to computing, and there's nothing out there that'll be production-ready in a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it an employee owned cooperative and not a for-profit company and have opt-in to the data collection with profits going to employees and data providers instead of investors.
How do you raise the giant sums of money needed to operate for years before any profits happen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a lot of "we don't know how it works therefore it could destroy all of us" but that sounds really handwavy to me. I want to see some concrete examples of how it's dangerous.
Given that the link contains dozens of articles with read times over 10 minutes there is no way you engaged with the problem enough to be able to dismiss it so casually with yourcown hand waving. Ignoring that fact however we can just look at what Bing and ChatGPT have been up to since release. Basically immediately after release both models were "jailbroken" in ways that allowed them to do undesirable things that Op…
I'm not concerned, absent significant advances in computing power far beyond the current trajectory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep forgetting we're talking about Sam Altman, someone who believed that scanning the world's population retinas in exchange for some crappy digital coin was a great idea and not a creepy spinoff of a shoddy sci-fi novel.
Another thing that worries me is seeing multiple openAI founders on twitter making grand predictions about the future of AI instead of staying humble and keeping their head down and letting the product speak for itself. That is not how serious engineers usually talk, sounds more like wannabe monopolists to me.