281–290 of 414 posts
Well, he’s right about one thing: > On Feb. 7, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, publicly gloated that the new Bing would make Google “come out and show that they can dance.” “I want people to know that we made them dance,” he said. > This is not how the CEO of Microsoft talks in a sane world. Certainly this is not the kind of childish priorities the leader of a company as powerful as Microsoft should have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went back and looked it up, the piece he wrote is called "Torture vs Dust Specks." The part about bombing countries who build data centers is in the submission editorial.
This is misinterpreted, he calls for an international treaty backed by military. One sees what he wants to see.
> already advocates bombing non treaty participants if they build a datacenter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alignment is necessary for AGI, but not always for narrowly scoped AI for specific purposes. However, it may be completely ineffective in that capacity.
Alignment is impossible for AGI. If you control what it can and cannot be, it's not an AGI. If it's an AGI, it will decide for itself what it is going to be, and you can't stop it.
I mean that was my original premise supported by my article I posted. I go into detail on the conceptual methods for alignment and their fallacies.
When I state necessary, I don't imply the feasibility, it was in response to the question of the paradox.
Finally, the fact that AGI can not be aligned is also based on assumptions of its capabilities as well. If those capabilities don't manifest as we expect, that is really the only escape for the paradox.
The Butlerian Jihad is officially no longer science fiction. Man may not be replaced. “The Letter” was obviously self serving drivel from people who want time to get in the game. Google does care about AI existential risk, they care about beating Microsoft by any means possible, including declaring a moratorium, but continuing to make progress behind the scenes. This guy is the real deal. I can imagine he would perso…
AGI means ability to improve itself indefinitely. Humans have this ability, obviously. Even ancient worms with 3 neurons have it, because they evolved to be humans, albeit very slowly. ChatGpt can't improve itself yet, but maybe with a few tweaks it could.
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…
> This time, should we expect another war? You just reminded me of de Garis' "Artilect War": https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/cosmist-terran-cyborgist-o... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221328932_The_Artil...
> Humanity will split into 3 major camps, the “Cosmists” (in favor of building artilects), the “Terrans” (opposed to building artilects), and the “Cyborgs” (who want to become artilects themselves by adding components to their own human brains)
This did remind me of Civilization: Beyond Earth... https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Civilizat...
Data > processing power. 90 percent of what we do occurs as a result of semi random discovery and explanation. Computers are great tools to aid in that process, but for the most part we find ourselves limited by what we know, not how much we can think. 99 percent of data is useless and correctly thrown away by our minds.
The utility of processing power in a vacuum rapidly degrades with time. If I'm a computer and I use the data I have to discover all of the rules of the universe while in a box, I'm going to emerge with many hilarious and out of touch philosophies at the end of it. You need a constant test and revise cycle, because pure logic just doesn't model the universe in an accurate way.
Moores law isn't infinite. Power efficiency and how common resources are will matter more than continued process shrinking. Humans are made from common materials, are largely self sustaining and correcting, and consume very little energy for the amount and quality of the thinking we do. Computers aren't going to scale forever, and I'll hazard to guess that once they get to a certain point they'll start being more analog-biological than transistor based.
There are just so many unspoken benefits to being life. These AI machines that will bowl over humanity have to actually be proven to be slightly realistic beyond a thought experiment before I take them seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad you took logic in college. Shoulda followed up with ecology.
I’m sorry you think Covid proves anything about nuclear war or that it’s at all relevant to a discussion about life on earth being eradicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"he's gonna milk it to every drop" is such an odd take. eliezer has long been concerned about AI and the risks it poses to humanity. and for just as long people have called him crazy and made hand-waving arguments for why we shouldn't be concerned. now we're in the midst of an AI arms race and we don't have any good idea how this tech works. it progresses at a truly astonishing rate, where it's become sport to find i…
> we don't have any good idea how this tech works. Do you mean the specifics of GPT-4, or Transformers in general ?