141–150 of 414 posts
I've used GPT-4, and while extremely impressive, it doesn't feel like we're all that much closer to super-intelligent AI than we were last month or last year. It feels like Google on steroids, but the gap between GPT-4 and AGI still feels massive. This seems like so much putting the cart way ahead of the horse.
I've known about Eliezer Yudkowsky's ideas for a long time, but here is something I've never seen: what actually he has produced, in term of scientific output? I've read plenty of his lesswrong's writing on the idea of rationalist, as well as plenty more on the AI alignment side (obviously including the famous basilisk). But can someone please point me to some results from the last 2 decades of his works? Either from…
Reading this thread is like witnessing a mass freakout event. Chat GPT4 is far from intelligence, but it seems it's enough to fool idiots.
GPT-4 performs quite well on reasoning and critical thinking assessments.
A literal cartoon villain monologue: "If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike." "Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchan…
Articles like this are a good reminder that most of mankind's progress has happened not through encouraging innovation, but from preventing those hostile to it from getting in its way. We all have a moral imperative to maximize the rate of innovation, so that the human condition can be improved, and therefore to do whatever we can to frustrate and disempower Luddites and other obstructionists. Team "step on the gas".
You can’t think of any technological innovations that were net negatives? We have a moral obligation to assess every new technology to determine its safety and effects on society. Blindly stepping on the gas in the name of progress is how you end up in a polluted wasteland. There are places like that on planet Earth, but I’m guessing you’d choose not to live there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear weapons haven't even been around for a century yet and we've already had multiple extremely close calls that were adverted by sheer luck, in one case a Russian officer openly disobeying standing orders. The Russian invasion of Ukraine still has a non-trival risk it will eventually turn nuclear. Looking at nukes and trying to use them as an example of our ability to control existentially dangerous technology i…
Myopic or not, it is what happened. You can't stop sovereign state's willingness to develop a technology if they concluded that benefits coming from the technology is so huge compared to the cost. North Korea was sanctioned to the oblivion but they're not stopping. India is doing fine. There is a treaty completely banning existing nuclear weapons as well as developing new one (TPNW); but none of permenant member of U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also: imagine the year is 1900. You are saying that steam power and electricity is causing way too many changes way too fast so they put a moratorium on it until the year 2500. Great analogy. About a decade later, the world was fighting World War I on the back of the technological advances of the turn of the century. It was war on a scale never seen before. Literally orders of magnitude deadlier, bigger, more trans…
>I like to think we (and our organic matter relatives) are hard to kill. Or at least to completely eradicate... so we will be around, or some proxy for us. What is your hard evidence or reasoning for this? As I see it humans are quite vulnerable and will be as trivial to inadvertently eradicate as the dodo bird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that doesn't follow. It's possible to think that all biological life was about to be destroyed but also believe some combination of 1) it's hopeless to bomb data centers because I'd quickly be stopped by the authorities and remaining data centers would beef up security, and nothing would be accomplished, 2) in the past, other people who have had beliefs of this sort ("violence is the only answer") have been wrong…
Yudkowsky is an avowed extreme utilitarian of the "take a person from the street and kill him if his organs could save two people, as long as there is forced pill everyone would take so that everyone doesnt get nervous it that could happen to them" type. Of the "unless the population was really large and the pill would hurt their throats for more utilons than gained by the net increase in life" type. A real argument…
I want to know greatly what this implies about life vis-a-vis Fermi's paradox.
Are we potentially risking intervention from a "peace-keeping" race that suppresses civilizations on the cusp of generating AI?