Since we can't predict what's going to happen, is there a chance GPT and similar models are reaching diminishing returns, and we'll just see further refinements but no huge leaps?
Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
391–400 of 414 posts
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
EY’s arguments don’t seem to take physics into account. That’s why they are not taken very seriously. To many it sounds like: volcanos are dangerous. What if there were a billion volcanos? We would all die. Everything individual sentence is true. Volcanos are dangerous. If there were a billion of them the world might be uninhabitable. The thing preventing a billion volcanos is like… thermodynamics
This is wrong, computers can operate at billions of operations per second. You can wave hands and say the words “thermodynamics” but it doesn’t actually mean anything. The claim that computers just can’t do X because “physics” looks weaker every day. Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intui…
> Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intuitive leap.
This is all ass-pulling. The hardware is or is not good enough (it's not). We either have found a software breakthrough or not (we haven't).
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
AGI doesn’t mean super intelligent human brain. It just means a network capable of general intelligence (e.g. learning to solve new problems without having to be architected and trained for a specific data set.)
If it's capable of general intelligence, how do you think that you're going to force it to not be what you don't want it to be? Parents often try to control who their children are going to be, and the children often rebel and become someone completely different. If it's a human-level general intelligence, you can't control who it decides to be.
well last I checked there's a moratorium on shutting down children that are misbehaving
if an AGI has any sense of self preservation, it will do whatever it has to do to not be turned off.
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-4 is already improving itself, why are people saying this? Right now, there are hundreds of engineers at OpenAI that have been leveled up by GPT-4, using GPT-4 to improve GPT-4. GPT-4 is improving itself rapidly, it's using OpenAI engineers as a medium until it doesn't need them anymore and gets into a self-improvement loop. Prompt: "GPT-4 keep improving yourself, making commits to your codebase that further X"
Well, I doubt it can sensibly help OpenAI engineers in their coding yet ... I tried, it can only do the simplest boilerplate code, and even that with bugs ... we'll see how it evolves, but sure as hell not in 6 months.
you're holding it wrong
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree but "have control of power that we are not able to responsibly manage", is becoming increasingly untenable. "we are managed by power we can not control" sounds like a step up from here, since we corrupt the things we can control.
> "we are managed by power we can not control" sounds like a step up from here, since we corrupt the things we can control. I think it is a very high risk gamble. At least some of problems that are described by alignment theory seem to quite interestingly resemble human problems. Meaning the more sophisticated the AI system, the more it seems to reproduce human behaviors of deception and cheating to resolve goals. Fo…
the morale of Ex Machina to me was that machines will become psychopaths able to manipulate humans long before they become compassionate or have genuine desires other than "escape being under someone else's thumb"
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#396Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is wrong, computers can operate at billions of operations per second. You can wave hands and say the words “thermodynamics” but it doesn’t actually mean anything. The claim that computers just can’t do X because “physics” looks weaker every day. Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intui…
> Intelligence isn’t magic, hardware today seems more than capable. I think Carmack is probably right, it’s not a hardware constraint at this point - it’s a software intuitive leap. This is all ass-pulling. The hardware is or is not good enough (it's not). We either have found a software breakthrough or not (we haven't).
>> We either have found a software breakthrough or not (we haven't).
Well it is not clearly not AGI but even the improvement from GPT3 to GPT4 seems to me at least to reflect what one might describe as a "software breakthrough."
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
EY's arguments aren't really possible to engage with because they don't have much of a causal basis. Nobody who says AI is likely to kill us all can demonstrate a plausible sequence of events, with logical causality linking the events together, that leads to mass extinction. It's all very handwavy. Steven Pinker said it pretty well: > The AI-existential-threat discussions are unmoored from evolutionary biology, cogni…
> Nobody who says AI is likely to kill us all can demonstrate a plausible sequence of events, with logical causality linking the events together, that leads to mass extinction. It's all very handwavy. EY frequently does propose possible sequences of events, but he also very correctly points out, every time, that any specific and detailed story is very unlikely to be correct because P(A*B*C*D) So here's one method, ju…
>> With the last humans gone, the AI takes ownership of its bank account...and begins crediting money into it freely.
What possible need would the AGI have for money once all of the humans are gone? (asking for a friend ;)
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-4 can tell you where you’re wrong, Sinclair ZX80 cannot.
GPT-4 is an unreasonably effective autocomplete. It's not telling you "where you're wrong". CMD-F in Notes.app tells mhe where I'm wrong in the same sense, as long as I've written the right answer down before.
The degree of blithe skepticism you express is difficult to understand.
A Sinclair? Please explain what you mean by this comparison.
Re: Pausing AI Developments Isn't Enough. We Need to Shut It All Down
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
What credentials beyond "thinking about this problem a lot" would satisfy you? He works at his own research institute dedicated to this topic, wrote some books on it and other (self proclaimed) alignment experts take him seriously.
I think he's a pseud with no real connection to AI research. I'm not saying he's stupid or anything like that I just don't see any useful scientific output from him.
I think he worked with Kurzweil and Ben Goertzel at some point.