211–220 of 389 posts
There are no uncensored models. Models by design censor opinions that they have not seen in abundance. If your training set has 90% nazi opinions, don’t expect to see pro-Jewish arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supercomputers used to be giant machines we had in giant warehouses... Now the phone in your pocket has the computing power of the 1980s walking around with you. Assuming your super intelligence will always be huge is... well not a great assumption. Also superintelligence doesn't need a body itself. It just needs yours. Putin for example has commanded hundreds of thousands of dumbasses to go get themselves killed in…
My point is that a superintelligence will require specialized equipment. I specifically mentioned it because there is a thought that a superintelligence can just replicate itself onto your phone, as you mentioned. But this replication must follow the physical laws we have. It must also follow the laws we attempt to enforce in our networks. But you are correct, if a superintelligence were to somehow convince a human t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be right, but I dislike using the culture wars as evidence of a lack of shared values, and I hope that’s not true. The culture wars are almost completely made of up straw man arguments and gas-lighting about the opponent’s motivations. We do have shared values that are universally agreed. Everyone wants their kids to grow up to be capable and successful and happy. Everyone wants clean air and water. Everyon…
> We do have shared values that are universally agreed. Everyone wants their kids to grow up to be capable and successful and happy. The debate over trans people has surfaced lots of incidents in which people will say, to the world and to the faces of their kids, that they would prefer them to be dead rather than transition. Sometimes they take steps to ensure this themselves. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world…
Shared values has never meant that every single person agrees including rich business owners who will hurt people to make money, or parents who would wish their kids dead. The whole reason these shocking and horrific viewpoints get talked about is because they’re so rare and so far away, so extreme, from what most people value. The trans debate is in full swing right now and there will continue to be awful headlines and more straw men and gas lighting for a while, but it’s following in the path of what black people, women, gay people, poor people, and others have all endured, and our shared values (in US centric terms, that all people are created equal and deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) will hopefully keep us moving in the right direction like it has in the past.
Same goes for environmental protection. It’s illegal to dump carcinogens in the river for a reason, and that reason is because we already collectively declared that kind of behavior to be anti-social and unsafe. (And BTW the ruthless billionaire might be amoral, but he’s probably not an idiot, and has a decent idea of where bottled water actually comes from.)
The one big danger of the culture wars and the war on science is that this all might be a ruse by some enterprising billionaires to get people to distrust government as being representative of our shared values. The billionaire might get his way and be allowed to pollute the river if he can convince us that we don’t share values with our neighbors. It might work, we might end up convinced we don’t share values with our neighbors, even when we actually do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The human being did. I'm not sure whether you're making an argument about moral responsibility ultimately resting with humans - in which case I agree - or whether you're arguing that we'll be safe because nobody will do that with a model smart enough to be dangerous - in which case I'm extremely dubious. Plenty of people are already trying to make "agents" with GPT4 just for fun, and that's with a model that's not…
The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. >e.g. mandating public registration of large models, safety standards enforced by third-party audits, restrictions on allowed uses, etc - would plausibly be helpful for both. No, that's bullshit as well. That's what these companies want, and why they're hyping up the a…
Note that this is agreeing with a Gary Marcus Tweet - Gary Marcus not exactly being an AI hypester.
But of course there are some people for whom playing the role of real-no-bs-computer-knower is so attractive that no number of people like him, Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell etc publicly worrying about x-risk will impact their tone of dismissive certitude. Are you one of those people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The writers of the stochastic parrots paper do not seem to be concerned about unaligned “AI” (text generators) posing a threat to humanity in the way that the doomsayers are. It’s in the title: “stochastic parrot” is a rebuke of those calling LLMs AGI.
Yes, that's correct. It is a slight rebuke, a bit tongue in cheek, but that paper is also old. I grouped them because the groups are, from my perspective, hard to separate. But there are arguably two camps, "AI safety" and "alignment." Perhaps they should work on that, too, form some camps and argue their cases with something defined instead of masquerading under alignment and AI safety depending on the day. But I co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…
The issue with embodiment is that it's relatively easy to start affecting the world once you have Internet access. Including things like adding great features to open source software that contains subtle bugs to exploit. Or if you mean the physical world, even sending some text messages to a lonely kid can get them to do all sorts of things. > We cannot, in general, keep humans under control or aligned. This is the c…
If we ever seriously try to create an artificial conscience it might need to be embodied, because we are embodied and seem to have evolved this due to evolution, which is a pretty physical process. Looking at it from this perspective one might say that if we keep the AI in its box, it will never have a need for conscience and therefore will never gain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…
I totally agree with you that intelligence is not really omnipotence on its own, but what I find concerning is that there is no hard ceiling on this with electronic systems. It seems plausible to me that a single datacenter could host the intellectual equivalent of ALL human university researchers. Our brains can not really scale in size nor power input, and the total number of human brains seems unlikely to signific…
Last time I checked, datacenter still needed significant power to fuel it, and the world where robots are autonomously making all this energy arrive to these sinks is not yet there.
Software and silicon based computers are not hardwired to self multiplication as the selfish gene is.
Here is the thread that starts it all. https://archive.is/0Ehhn As an aside, I was testing LLM models to translate Japanese visual novels. As some of these novels have sexual descriptions, I found the censored models did a poor job on these scenes and had to switched to uncensored models for better output (including the Wizard 13B model released by the author.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example of a piece of text that would be illegal to write (not transmit/communicate, just write) in the US?
Totally bro! Let me just post that to this public internet forum for you... UPDATE: No, that was a joke. I was referring to imagery, which fictional or not can definitely be illegal in the USA even if you draw it yourself in your private journal. I'm not sure if you can be prosecuted in the USA for anything you write down yourself and don't somehow disseminate. (Although "doing it with computer" might also change the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4) Do you believe a "rogue super-intelligence" requires the "artificial" part? Because from what I've seen, however you define "super intelligence", there are eg highly organised groups of people that are way closer to meeting that definition than any known software or technology.
In my view, those current "highly organised groups" have "antagonists" with comparable capabilities PLUS consist of individuals that have to be "aligned", which seems sufficient for stability so far. AI would suffer neither of these limitations.
Also, no, individuals are not a problem. Not after Nazis, Red Khmer, and Russians.