361–370 of 1001 posts
>AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. LMAO. “AI should have… waves at a laundry list of nice sounding adjectives that mean different things to every single signatory in order to accomplish… Humanity [can enjoy] a flourishing future with AI. This will take… six month…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, sounds like parties not fully grokking the optimal (not thinly logical) solution to the iterated prisoners' dilemma. I saw the same thought process is the otherwise very nice novel "Time's Children". Good for drama, but not thought through.
I have so many questions >> what does it mean to fully grok the optimal? >> what is the iterated prisoners dilemma?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#The_iterate...
They should certainly make them better. I'm currently trying to convince ChatGPT that a Pi zero is faster than a 486/33 (I also asked it how to italicise text on HN, and it got it wrong twice - so I went to google for "Ed:.." bit below). That's not to say I'm down on it - it's very impressive, and it's certainly going to change things (exactly how, I don't know - though with my decades long swing from how cool the in…
GPT is not a person. It doesn't categorize subjects. It models patterns of text.
A success would mean that your text prompts left a significant text pattern in the model. A failure would mean that it didn't.
Nothing about that has any bearing on logic.
This is arguing for a group of people to have the power to decide some field is "unsafe" as per some vague, unverifiable criteria, then set up a police structure to verify compliance, all outside the safeguards of democratic or judicial norms.
Precautionary principle run amok.
>AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. LMAO. “AI should have… waves at a laundry list of nice sounding adjectives that mean different things to every single signatory in order to accomplish… Humanity [can enjoy] a flourishing future with AI. This will take… six month…
I understand that some people find this a hopeless gesture. But I think anybody who thinks "losing jobs" or "China" is a bad outcome from AI is hopelessly lost. The upside of AI if done right - nobody ever having to work again The downside of AI if done wrong - end of humanity It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine we've made AIs go from thinking like an ant to thinking like a 6-year-old in a few years. Anyb…
This would be totalitarian. This is arguing for a group of people to have the power to decide some field is "unsafe" as per some vague, unverifiable criteria, then set up a police structure to verify compliance, all outside the safeguards of democratic or judicial norms. Precautionary principle run amok.