[dead]
Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#982[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#983[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#984[dead]
Most people are below average in many fields. An llm that is simply average in most areas is smarter than most.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#985I used to be fairly unconcerned about AI being dangerous. But part of the Yudkowsky interview on Lex Fridman 's podcast changed my mind. The disconnect for me is that Yudkowsky posits that the AIs will be fully "alive", thinking millions of times faster than humans and that there will be millions of them. This is too big of a speculative leap for me. What I can fairly easily imagine in the next few years with improve…
The question about if an AI is "alive" seems entirely irrelevent outside of a philosophy class. What will be relevant is when people begins to consider it alive. The most recent example of that is when people fell in love with their AI girlfriend and then were heartbroken when she "died" after an update: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-replika-cha... It will be hard to "kill" AI the moment people con…
> The question about if an AI is "alive" seems entirely irrelevent outside of a philosophy class
it's entirely relevant. we should know if we are building conscious beings, especially at scale (which seems like a likely future). that poses all sorts of ethical questions which ought to reach far beyond the confines of a lecture hall's walls.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#986[deleted]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#987[flagged]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#988Disappointing. Yet another industry leader sewing public FUD for some reason. Why not bring rational discourse into the conversation around software safety and ethics. Automation has been the driving force of industry since the industrial revolution itself. We're not new to automation, and we are certainly not new to safety of autonomous systems. AI is no different.
Too bad you're being downvoted because you're making very good points. All the counter arguments are arguments from authority also.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#989Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calculators are not smarter than humans. Don’t be obtuse. He means the same thing anyone means when they say something like “Alice is smarter than Bob”.
It's quite obvious that these LLMs are approaching and encroaching on human intelligence. It's so strange to see people continuously be in denial. They clearly aren't fully there yet but two things must be noted: 1. At times and in certain instances LLMs do produce superior output to humans. 2. There is a clear trendline of improvement in AI for the past decade. From voice recognition in Alexa to Dall-E to chatGPT. T…
Agreed. There is a phenomenon that I haven’t found a good name for, which I first observed in self-driving cars: “AI made a mistake that only a really dumb human could make, therefore AI is really dumb”.
If you imagine the spider chart of capabilities, it’s certain that AI will be super-human on average before it is super-human on each dimension, so even when it can replace 50% of current jobs it’s likely to have its own “cognitive biases” that seem dumb to us. I think this is a cognitive bias on our part (pattern matching instead of properly probability-weighting, maybe the conjunctive fallacy).
I regret the snark in my post but I find the “pretend not to understand someone’s clear point” rhetorical device obnoxious. I am aware of a few reasonable arguments against Hinton’s position (I don’t happen to agree with them), but they require more finesse to construct.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#990“The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,” said Hinton to the NYT. “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.” Calculators are smarter then humans in calculating, what does he mean by that?
These results are predicted by LLM Scaling Laws and the GPT authors knew it before they started.
where are these laws?