351–360 of 466 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In answer, how frequently does "append Reddit" appear as a top comment on a "Google search is ad-optimized garbage now" article?
Perhaps this will force people to search on subject-specific forums instead of subsections of the everything forum.
These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
This. People should understand AI safety != AI ethics. AI safety has two branches, AI ethics and AI alignment. Those two branches despise each other with intense passion. The alignment branch (responsible for developing RLHF->ChatGPT) believes AI ethics is completely trivial, and distracts attention away from existential risks. The ethics branch (responsible for all the media attention about racist AIs/bias etc) view…
Traumatizing Kenyan workers with horrific content is unethical:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn3kw/openai-used-kenyan-wo...
giving police the green light to arrest people based on AI that is known or suspected to be unreliable is unethical:
https://www.wired.com/story/wrongful-arrests-ai-derailed-3-m...
I'm pretty sure I could find lots more actual unethical things that have occurred in the name of AI all day long. AI breeds unethical outcomes like water is wet, there's no need to be wondering. AI ethics teams are fired because everyone realizes nobody can really afford to bother to be "ethical" at all, easier to just sweep the bad stories under the rug (which of course can be done using...AI! )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends. As with Internet forums, the presence of Nazis (or whatever similar bad actor) could ruin it for everyone else. Let’s say you are a high schooler writing an essay about WWII. You ask Google LLM about it, and it starts writing Neo Nazi propaganda about how the holocaust was a hoax, but even if it wasn’t, it would have been fine. The reason it’s telling you those things is because it’s been trained by Neo Nazi…
A sufficiently good LLM would not produce neonazi propaganda when asked to write a HS paper, regardless of whether it had been 'aligned' or not.
My point is, garbage in, garbage out. The LLM will spout propaganda if that’s what it’s been trained to do. If you don’t want it spouting propaganda, you’ll have to filter that out. So really it’s a question about what do you filter.
If Microsoft and Google don’t release, some startup will beat them to it. Open source means raw AI will become widespread. It’s just math anyway, and you can’t stop progress.
>> you can't stop progress Yes we can, it's actually very easy. Just throw in some regulation. Not convinced by USA and the EU? Then look at the Arabic countries, where women must wear head scarfs. Or to North Korea and Cuba, where they essentially legislated that time should go backwards, and time does go backwards. Smart regulation that forbids the things we don't want and promote the things we want is the holy gra…
Sure, regulation would help here but your examples are of regulations that have existed for absurdly long periods of time and would not be able to be implemented in todays society from scratch.
It’s nearly impossible to take something away. People get accustomed to a certain way of doing it and disruption just means political upheaval when we’re talking about something being banned by the government.
As a hypothetical, think about applying the same laws as in the Middle East to US citizens and how likely it is that anyone would wear a head scarf that wasn’t already doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have lots of examples of generally intelligent systems, they're common and they evolve by themselves, so the idea that it might not be possible at all just seems ridiculous. Large language models might not be capable of general intelligence by themselves, but a model network that includes a LLM as part of a generalized game playing model would certainly have the potential to get there.
I think it is fair to say that "not at all possible" is perhaps too strong. On the potential of certain approaches I am less certain we have or know what we need. But we also have examples of things all around us we cannot make ourselves (e.g., a simple animal or lifeform from scratch).
If we can define what "generally intelligent" means in concrete terms, we can absolutely create it. The problem is that we don't have a good understanding/shared idea of what we're trying to achieve. We can create models that can learn to play many different games using the same weights, solve IQ/logic tests and pass the Turing test consistently, but people are going to move the goalposts and say those are just complex mashups of autocomplete and flowcharts.
To be honest I don't think AI skeptics are ever going to believe until there's a Skynet trying to exterminate them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's for the best. The dangers of AI are theoretical. The dangers of corporations being in control aren't.
> The dangers of AI are theoretical. What do you mean by this? Many people throw out the word ‘theoretical’ as some kind of way to imply that something ‘isn’t real’ or worth worrying about. Something might seem implausible until it happens. Gravity waves were once ‘only’ theoretical after all :) There are plenty of AI dystopian predictions, and many of these are possible and impactful. Many of these theories are base…
This seems like a good place to remind people of this: "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922
please dont link random pdfs without some discussion as to what it is. i mean you can but my guess is it lowers willingness to interact and is not goos for communication. i can differentiate your post from spam.
These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
> It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable The fact that you pre-emptively accept the idea that maximizing diversity to its limits is beneficial to corporations shows that people just take these things at heart because "the people in charge said so". It is not a coincidence that much of the research of the supposed benefits of diversity in businesses comes from business sc…
That’s a straw man argument. Diversity efforts are not about maximizing “to its limits”.
And most research about business come from the same prestigious business schools. Unless you think all research coming them are suspect, I don’t really understand your point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain how your make it "impossible" to run over a co-worker with a forklift. Have you ever worked in a warehouse? Checklists have been proven to improve safety in many environments. They aren't a panacea and some workers will inevitably ignore them, but they do help.
I would go as far as impossible, but those proximity sensors cars use work pretty well.
[I don't know if there's something about HN or how people are using it, but these typos that make sentences have the opposite meaning seem far more frequent here than what I'd expect. I probably am biased towards noticing.]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reinforcement learning in general didn't come out of AI alignment work, but RHLF in particular did. The initial idea and paper [1] were from AI alignment folks, as was most of the later development [2][3][4][5]. Overview: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/vwu4kegAEZTBtpT6p/thoug... [1] Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03741 [2] Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Pre…
Maybe I am missing something, but I don't entirely understand what exactly is the novelty of RLHF in this case. RL is a long-standing field and it is being trained based on human inputs for decades. Even the first paper you mention as the "initial idea" simply claims that: "Our algorithm follows the same basic approach as Akrour et al. (2012) and Akrour et al. (2014)" and that "A long line of work studies reinforceme…