All they need is for Gerard Butler to sign the letter and our course of action will be clear.
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
461–470 of 1001 posts
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Virtue signalling"? Please. There are a lot of very smart experts on that signatory list who definitely don't need to, or care about, virtue signalling. Fine, ignore Musk's signature, but I don't think luminaries like Stuart Russell, Steve Wozniak, Jaan Tallinn or John Hopfield are doing this for "virtue signalling". You can fairly argue that this will be ineffective, but a lot of experts in this field have real, "h…
There are plenty of bigger "human ending" concerns on the table right now than AI and we certainly aren't pausing anything for those.
No, AI drives all the others in the long run. Others are speed bumps.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#463Not sure why people think AI development can’t be paused. A letter alone probably won’t do it, but a movement — perhaps coalescing around the principles laid out in letter signed by influential people — can. Governments can regulate it. Consumers and companies can, if they want, punish companies that keep moving forward on AI. People can keep making AIs but would have difficulty releasing them, which greatly reduces…
> governments can regulate it
Sure let me regulate it and slow down development of US based OpenAI while China doesn't and takes over the world.
There is no stopping it now, it's an uncertain negative outcome whereas a nuke blowing up is quite certain. For that reason alone the arguments won't be unanimous enough for development to be paused.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#464How striking is it that everybody has so much to say about the dangers of AI.
What if we look at it this way: there are already real-known dangers coming at us: climate change and a change of instability of the world order.
What if we only have one shot to solve these known dangers and what if an exponential growing corpus of smartness could teach us how?
We need to grab that chance, the stakes are too high.
Pausing is not an option. If 99 per cent pauses, the 1 percent that does not obey will have a tremendous advantage.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#465>Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable
This statement by itself sounds reasonable. But for me an interesting thought experiment is to take this letter and imagine the equivalent for some other technology, for example semiconductors in the 1960s, the world wide web in the 1990s, or social media in the late 2000s-early 2010s. It is always true that new technologies have the potential to radically transform society in ways that we can't predict. One could reasonably have said "[semiconductors/the world wide web/social media] should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable". Does that mean that a self-imposed ban on research and development with the threat of a government moratorium would have been justified?
At this point the best case scenario is that society learns to adapt and keep up with technological developments. Every new technology increases our ability to both improve people's lives and harm them in various ways. It's not a good long-term solution to intervene and stop progress every time we gain new capabilities.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#466My main issue is that I think it's wildly unfair that giant corps can pretty much put anything into their content laundering machines without any scrutiny or attribution.
I don't think AI is fair use, and I don't think anyone who released their work under "free for commercial use" licenses could have imagined this type of usage.
So my suggestion would be to make it a requirement that training data has, under terms decided by its authors, been allowed to be used specifically as training data.
And it should be required to implement a way for individuals to check if their data was used for training.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#467Meanwhile, experiments to create Synthetic Life, including novel basis for life and possibly new viruses as a lab exercise (that may leak like the GoF virus did in Wuhan) proceed with no oversight or calls for pausing. We can unplug the AI and forbid AI weaponry (except by the state) but we can’t unplug synthetic viruses and new potentially dangerous or superior forms of life once it’s out there. Something very phony about the calculus.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#468There ain't no stops on this rollercoaster
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#469I've been a staunch supporter of Elon throughout all his scandals, especially the Twitter ones but I'm unable to come up with any justification for this. Everything leads to him (and others) pressuring OpenAI to pause so they could catch up. It doesn't take much smarts to deduce the cats already out of the bag. There is no stopping this, only pressuring/slowing-down/targeting certain players (OpenAI) as a competition…
Doesn't Elon continue to hold a stake in OpenAI? Do you think Tesla wants to compete with OAI in building an LLM? Make use of Dojo?
Elon donated money back when they were pretending to be a charity. He has no stake in them.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of bigger "human ending" concerns on the table right now than AI and we certainly aren't pausing anything for those.
Like what ? Climate change ? The EU just voted for petrol and diesel car ban. Are we really single-threaded ?
We're so poorly multi-threaded, even addressing climate change has been horribly slow...