[deleted]
Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
861–870 of 1001 posts
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#862To those saying "this is impossible in our society", there is a long history of scientific fields mutually agreeing to pause certain work until safety and regulations could be put in place. The Asilomar Conference is an example. [1] The idea that "you can't put the genie back in the bottle" is very popular in tech culture, but many have suggested that simply extending elements of copyright or tort law to AI would be…
I had a professor who was involved in that kind of research at the time of the Asilomar Conference. He said it was all very good, everyone agreed to pause their research until people established guidelines for safety. And then once the guidelines were established and research was allowed to resume, everyone immediately published all the research that they had never stopped working on during the "pause".
[deleted]
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#863Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more you argue with it the more it will dig in - because you've got a whole chat priming it to argue. Try starting a new conversation and taking a different approach from the beginning, and try to prime it from the beginning to put it in the context that you're looking for.
I did indeed do that (more than once) yet it continues to come to the same (erroneous) conclusion. Try "Which is faster, a Pi zero or a 486/33?".
Is this the sort of result you were getting? That looks ok to me?
> In the role of an expert System Administrator and with strong hardware knowledge, explain in detail which is faster: a Pi Zero or a 483/33?
As an expert System Administrator with strong hardware knowledge, I can provide a comparison between the Raspberry Pi Zero and an Intel 486DX2-66, which is the closest to a "483/33" (possibly a typo [I did indeed fat-finger that]) in terms of existing processors.
Raspberry Pi Zero: The Raspberry Pi Zero is a single-board computer (SBC) released in 2015 by the Raspberry Pi Foundation. It is based on the Broadcom BCM2835 system on a chip (SoC) which includes a 1 GHz ARM11 single-core processor (ARM1176JZF-S) and a VideoCore IV GPU. It has 512 MB of shared LPDDR2 RAM.
Intel 486DX2-66 (closest to "483/33"): The Intel 486DX2-66 is a microprocessor released in 1992 by Intel. It is based on the 80486 microarchitecture and features a 66 MHz clock speed with a 33 MHz bus speed. The processor has a 32-bit data bus, an integrated FPU (Floating-Point Unit), and 8 KB of L1 cache (unified). The 486DX2-66 does not have any integrated graphics or memory controller.
Comparison:
While both Raspberry Pi Zero and Intel 486DX2-66 are dated by today's standards, it's important to consider their specifications in order to determine which one is faster.
The Raspberry Pi Zero features a 1 GHz ARM11 processor, which is significantly faster than the Intel 486DX2-66's 66 MHz clock speed. Additionally, the Raspberry Pi Zero has a more modern ARM-based architecture, which is generally more efficient in terms of instructions per clock (IPC) than the older x86 architecture of the 486DX2-66.
In terms of memory, the Raspberry Pi Zero has 512 MB of LPDDR2 RAM, while the Intel 486DX2-66 requires separate RAM modules, and would typically be paired with a maximum of 16 to 64 MB of EDO or FPM DRAM, depending on the motherboard and chipset in use. The Raspberry Pi Zero's integrated memory controller also provides a more streamlined communication between the CPU and the memory.
Lastly, the Raspberry Pi Zero has an integrated GPU (VideoCore IV), which allows it to handle graphical tasks better than the Intel 486DX2-66, which lacks an integrated GPU and relies on separate graphics cards.
In conclusion, the Raspberry Pi Zero is significantly faster than the Intel 486DX2-66, both in terms of processing power and memory capabilities. Additionally, the Pi Zero's integrated GPU provides better graphics support than the Intel 486DX2-66.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#864Two-party iterated prisoner's dilemma is hard enough. Sensible players will coordinate with something like tit-for-tat, but that only works when both parties start off on the right foot. Regardless of initial strategy, the chances of degenerating towards the mutual-defection Nash equilibrium increase with the number of parties. The only prior example of world coordination at this level would be nuclear disarmament ac…
> Climate change mitigation, which more closely resembles AI safety in both complexity and (lack of) barriers to entry, has been sporadic, inconsistent, and only enacted to the extent... Climate change mitigation is the perfect example. Nobody is doing anything, nobody seems to care, everyone cheats with ridiculous carbon credits or carbon offset vouchers made out of thin air, etc. It's likely the planet will become…
It is just not true that “nobody is doing anything.” CO2 emissions in the United States and Europe are falling and have been doing so for years. To say that is nothing is misrepresenting reality.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#865Best response to the current "AI" fad driven fear I've seen so far (not my words): These AI tools cannot do things. They create text (or images or code or what-have-you) in response to prompts. And that's it! It is impressive, and it is clearly passing the Turing Test to some degree, because people are confusing the apparent intelligence behind these outputs with a combination of actual intelligence and "will." Not o…
[deleted]
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#866These people are either right or wrong; regardless, development will not slow down. It’s funny that OpenAI is starting to advocate for that on top of their billion dollar pile of money…
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#867[dead]
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#868These people are either right or wrong; regardless, development will not slow down. It’s funny that OpenAI is starting to advocate for that on top of their billion dollar pile of money…
None of the signatories of this open letter is from OpenAI.
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#869[flagged]
Re: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter
#870Best response to the current "AI" fad driven fear I've seen so far (not my words): These AI tools cannot do things. They create text (or images or code or what-have-you) in response to prompts. And that's it! It is impressive, and it is clearly passing the Turing Test to some degree, because people are confusing the apparent intelligence behind these outputs with a combination of actual intelligence and "will." Not o…
A river has no will, but it can flood and destroy. A discussion whether AI does something because it "wants" to or not, is just philosophy and semantics. But it may end up generating a series of destructive instructions anyway. We feed these LLMs all of the Web, including instructions how to write code, and how to write exploits. They could become good at writing sandbox escapes, and one day write one when it just ha…
Right, some people don't realise malicious intent is not always required to cause damage.