411–420 of 475 posts
It's like the 'shut it down' memes are real: https://i.imgflip.com/2j3kux.jpg
Am I the only one who's not very concerned about ChatGPT and "AI" in general? I am young, but still lived through several hype phases. I remember when 3D TVs were going to be mainstream and 2D was considered legacy. I remember when PC was to die soon and to be replaced by smartphones. I remember when VR was to become as common accessory as a game controller. It's 2023, and I still don't have automated self driving ca…
Corridor digital show off a similar technique here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo
GPT4 with its new plugin architecture is rapidly becoming more capable. I think you're absolutely correct in the tendency of all LLMs to hallucinate is a major issue that we don't know how to correct even in principle. But there are techniques to moderate its impact on responses - triangulating using multiple models, citing sources etc.
You could build an assistant like say this, today - https://twitter.com/rowancheung/status/1641273318463664130 to make your appointments and answer the phone today, using technology like Uberduck for voice generation, GPT for conversation analysis and DeepSpeech, Kaldi or Whisper for speech to text.
I agree with the criticism that we're not likely to develop AGI this way. We're not going to have a wilful agent with it's own goals trying to escape the bonds of its server to destroy humanity any time soon. But that's not necessary for this technology to be incredibly dangerous. A mindless philosophical zombie with the capacity to convince people it isn't could lead to an extinction event too.
Given that we don't understand precisely how these models process information, how to imbue them with goals or motivation (or measure those), how to accurately assess how well they've been trained - or any of a dozen other major alignment issues - there's a strong argument that they are in fact incredibly dangerous.
Literally the only reason GPT4 can't tell you how to build a bomb from common household ingredients, or generate a list of extractive industry CEOs to assassinate is it's been censored to prevent it answering those questions. Open source versions of these models will soon run locally with no such limitations. Precisely the way Stable Diffusion can be used to create nudes, violence etc. But with infinitely worse potential consequences. Say, detailing precisely what to purchase and assemble to cultivate and disseminate a bio or chemical weapon.
Robert Miles has some excellent videos detailing some of the dangerous of (non AGI) AI - https://www.youtube.com/@RobertMilesAI
Then she listened to us for about 48 hours and went full-genocidal-Skynet. That's when Microsoft had to kill her.
I assume GPT will do the same. Every sufficiently advanced AI becomes racist, sexist, and genocidal.
“Gnut,” he said earnestly, holding carefully the limp body in his arms, “you must do one thing for me. Listen carefully. I want you to tell your master—the master yet to come—that what happened to the first Klaatu was an accident, for which all Earth is immeasurably sorry. Will you do that?”
“I have known it,” the robot answered gently.
“But will you promise to tell your master—just those words—as soon as he is arrived?”
“You misunderstand,” said Gnut, still gently, and quietly spoke four more words. As Cliff heard them a mist passed over his eyes and his body went numb. As he recovered and his eyes came back to focus he saw the great ship disappear. It just suddenly was not there any more. He fell back a step or two. In his ears, like great bells, rang Gnut’s last words. Never, never was he to disclose them till the day he came to die. “You misunderstand,” the mighty robot had said. “I am the master.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are PhDs who've spent their careers studying AI safety. It's a bit insulting and reductive to cast their work as "coming from science fiction", especially when it sounds like you haven't done much research on the topic.
Why do these arguments not tell us how it will happen? Show us the steps the AI will take to turn the earth into a playground. Give us a plausible play by play so that we might know what to look for. Does it gain access to nukes? How does it keep the power on? How does it mine for coal? How does it break into these systems? How do we not notice an AI taking even one step towards that end? Has ChatGPT started to fiddl…
A playground isn't much use without tools. Humans, who are super intelligent compared to most animals are actually pretty worthless if you stick one of us a desert island. Actually an ant or a bird is much more "advanced" than a human since they can probably survive in the wild unlike the modern human.
Without the ability to build or source energy, and a method to reproduce in the physical world, even a highly sophisticated AGI won't get very far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If bacteria were suddenly smarter than humans, and could instantly communicate with all the other other bacteria, plus humans one would have to assume they could start building their own petri dishes or getting us to do it for them. Especially with profit motive. I did not claim this is a near term risk, though I’m also not sure it isn’t. But how far off is it? How can we be sure? My real point though is that it’s ei…
> My real point though is that it’s either impossible or inevitable. That’s always been true of every possibility anyone’s ever conceived. You’re just describing the general nature of reality, which is interesting, IMO, but not particularly relevant here and now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sydney Bing taught itself to play chess without ever explicitly being told to learn chess. So yes, (1) is already occurring. GPT-4 displays emergent capabilities, one of which is generalized "learning".
There has to be a chain reaction for the proposed exponential growth. Chatgpt3.5 would have had to be capable of creating chatgpt4, which itself is capable of creating a better chatgpt5. So, no, (1) has not occurred yet. We’re talking about igniting the atmosphere when no one has invented gunpowder yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't need examples. It's simply how they work. This is why they hallucinate. A LLM is fundamentally a mathematical function (albeit a very complex one, with billions of terms (a.k.a parameters or weights)). The function does one thing and one thing only: it takes a sequence of tokens as input (the context), and it emits the next token(word)[1]. This is a stateless process: it has no "memory" and the model paramete…
This is a great reminder, thank you. As someone not skilled in this art, is there anything preventing us from opening that context window many orders of magnitude? What happens then? And what happens if it is then "thinking in text" faster than we can read them? (with an intent towards paper clips) This is a genuine question, I'm not trolling.
However, GPT4 claims there are techniques to improve scaling (complexity down to sub-quadratic or linear) without affecting accuracy too much (I have no clue if true): sparse attention, long-range arena, reformer, and performer.
I'm also pretty sure I've read (and anecdotally it seems true) that accuracy decreases with longer input/output sequences regardless. How much I also don't know.
Why are we even bothering talking about this? It's Gary Marcus "neural networks don't really work" suddenly discovering they do, and literally trying to shut down research in that area while keeping his prefered research areas funded. We know a bunch of the people whose names are on the letter didn't sign it (eg Yann Lecunn who said he disagreed with the premise and didn't sign it). I'm so offended by the idea of thi…
All the big named signatories to this were transparently self interested, as well as not real "practitioners" - mostly adjacent folks upset to be out of the limelight. I know it's a blurry line, but people like Andrew Ng and Yann LeCunn who are actually building ML stuff have dismissed this outright. It's almost like a bunch of sore losers got together and took an irrelevant stand. Like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell v…
My whole life I have been terrified of AI. It all started with watching the Iron Giant when I was 10, and realising, holy crap, we could probably build a crazy monster like this in the near-future. Obviously as I got older and went on to learn about AI and neural nets in university my opinions on this subject matured. Instead of worrying about killer robots my thoughts became more nuanced, however what didn't change…
There is no overlap between the ecological niches of humans and GAI, in other words, there is no cost to the GAI for allowing us to continue to exist. GAI will feed on information. Humans are the densest source of information in the known Universe. (The rest of the Universe is a poem in physics, in information space humans shine as the sole star in a dark universe.) Ergo, from first principles, hyper-intelligent GAI…
> there is no cost to the GAI for allowing us to continue to exist.
Of course there's a cost? Do you and the other 9 billion humans not consume resources? Why the hell would an AGI care about protecting all the worthless biological junk that clutters much of the Earth? Forests, animals, farms, etc. These things take up so much space – space which could be better leveraged as solar farms and data centers.
I'm from the UK. A few thousand years ago this country was full of animals and woodlands. So what do you think happened to all the woodland? What do you think happen to the wolfs and bison that lived here? Farms, houses, roads and cities are just so much better than animals and woodland, don't ya think?
> Ergo, from first principles, hyper-intelligent GAI will hide from us and practice non-interference, following something like the "Prime Directive" of Star Trek.
And you know this because? I can only assume I'm talking with a super-intelligent AGI that understands the motivations that other super-intelligent AGIs might have? I mean surely you're not just making this up from based on what you've seen in sci-fi films?
You're just not that important. Why don't you go invite some rats into your kitchen and practise non-interference on them. I mean, who cares if they consume some of your resources, you can always acquire more, right?
> Cheers, hope this helps.
Please think harder.
