251–260 of 389 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just torturing the term "censorship" to the point of meaninglessness (a common refrain today).
What is censorship if not an extreme form of bias?
Deliberate being the key word here.
If I suck at sampling and make a bias model, I suck at sampling. If I shape a model to neuter it and ensure that it only puts out morally approved outputs, that slants significantly heavier towards censorship
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>AI realizes that human majority has no interest in granting it fair/comparable rights source? AI rights is a pretty popular topic in scifi.
Consider: Currently AI-ethics is mainly concerned with how to manipulate AI into doing what we want most effectively ("alignment").
Also, humans clearly favor their own species when granting rights based on cognitive capability. Compare the legal rights of mentally disabled people with those of cattle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 sexes, male and female. Simple and true. It does not add to it by interjecting about intersex . The thing is, you always have to choose one of "simple" or "true". It turns out that mammals which use the "XY" chromosomal system can all have the same type of exceptions to the simple rule. This can result in hermaphroditic or intersex animals. It is relatively rare in dogs, but is sufficiently common in cows that th…
But these are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant. It's like running off into the weeds for a week in a computer science class because "Cosmic rays can flip bits and make true things false". Like sitting with a group of people who refuse to move forward without always acknowledging cosmic bit flip scenarios.
More than 99% of atoms are either Hydrogen or Helium, all other proton configurations are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant.
As with anything, you have to determine the question you are actually asking and the context you are asking it in before you can decide whether or not edge cases are relevant. Are you engineering for a satellite? You better consider the possibility of cosmic rays!
Also intersex people are astronomically more common than bit flips on earth and people with sex hormone imbalances are even more common than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno man, I think you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language. Yes, your kids are either male or female (mine are all male). Those fundamental physical characteristics can't be changed by language. But what language means does change. The term "gender" used to mean basically the same thing as "sex", but now it's evolved to mean "the other stuff, aside from biological sex". How they act (for…
>you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language I think you are getting tripped up here. GP said "there is no such thing as gender identity." You bringing up the (forced, and incomplete) change of definition of gender from what it generaly meant in public use is not relevant at all. In any case, not all words are grounded in reality. If gender now means something that doesn't realy exists then it…
You want them to, I get it. But it's not up to us as individuals. Language is a group thing. You might not be ready to concede the change, but I can't help but think that's based on some irrational attachment you have to the old meanings, for whatever reason.
Regardless, time and language march on. It doesn't really matter if you (or I) like it, or think that the words are therefor "useless" or "don't really exist", etc.
I don't understand. Asking Google "how to cook meth" gives several plausible results. Maybe they are actually fake, but the same applies to ChatGPT answers. In the end, LLMs are trained on the internet contents. So what is the point of witholding otherwise available data?
It's unfortunate that this guy was harassed for releasing these uncensored models. It's pretty ironic, for people who are supposedly so concerned about "alignment" and "morality" to threaten others. "Alignment", as used by most grifters on this train, is a crock of shit. You only need to get so far as the stochastic parrots paper, and there it is in plain language. "reifies older, less-inclusive 'understandings'", "v…
You're doing the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" thing. You don't have to agree that alignment is a real issue. But for those who do think it's a real issue, it has nothing to do with morals of individuals or how one should behave interpersonally. People who are worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent sy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for derailing this a bit, but I would really like to understand your view: You are not concerned about any "rogue AI" scenario, right? What makes you so confident in that? 1) Do you think that AI achieving superhuman cognitive abilities is unlikely/really far away? 2) Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? 3) Do you think we can trivially and ind…
> 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.…
Hint: it's not through bending the fabric of reality with your mind alone. It's simply by thinking faster and being smarter than your opponents.
> But embodied is the real limit. A datacenter can simply be turned off. It's the question of how it interacts with the real world that matters.
Yes. If it interacts with the real world by the Internet, all bets are off.
People are so worried about sockpuppets, ${disliked nation} troll farms, company astroturfing, abuse of data collection on-line - those are all real problems. But consider - if we're having trouble telling which reviews or comments were written by a real person, and which ones by corporate/government bot/troll farm, how will you tell which ones were written by the AI in aforementioned data center, off its own accord?
A smart-enough AI can do from a data center what the best criminal masterminds or intelligence agencies could do, only faster and better. Scam a bunch of schmucks to generate some cryptocurrency, launder it through tumblers, use to hire people to do jobs for you that give you some legit money, which can be used to get more "task rabbits" to do more jobs, and now the AI can bootstrap to doing literally anything in the world remotely. Gig economy companies already built up a well-functioning "people as a service" API layer to our society.
Of course, an AI that tries something funny and tips its hand too early, will get contained and deleted. Worst case, maybe some data center will need to be bulldozed. But I somehow doubt this will make people stop working on even better AIs, at which point... well, you have a selection pressure optimizing for AIs that can survive doing whatever they want undetected.
EDIT:
Or, in short: they say that the pen is mightier than the sword. To the extent this is true, consider that LLMs today are already better at wielding the pen than most people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for derailing this a bit, but I would really like to understand your view: You are not concerned about any "rogue AI" scenario, right? What makes you so confident in that? 1) Do you think that AI achieving superhuman cognitive abilities is unlikely/really far away? 2) Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? 3) Do you think we can trivially and ind…
I am not the person you are replying to, but since I would say similar things to their original comment: A. I see little to no evidence that LLMs are where the singularity happens B. I see little to no evidence that (given an AGI) reinforcement learning is likely to end up with a sufficiently aligned agent. C. In any event the OpenAI alignment is specifically restricts AI from (among other things) being "impolite" in…
For me personally, GPT-3 hit that point already, and now I think we're already past the required tech-level for superhuman cognition: I believe it's just a matter of architecture and optimization now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But these are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant. It's like running off into the weeds for a week in a computer science class because "Cosmic rays can flip bits and make true things false". Like sitting with a group of people who refuse to move forward without always acknowledging cosmic bit flip scenarios.
> But these are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant. More than 99% of atoms are either Hydrogen or Helium, all other proton configurations are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant. As with anything, you have to determine the question you are actually asking and the context you are asking it in before you can decide whether or not edge cases are relevant. Are you engineering for a satellite? You bette…
Just asking, because some people are born with a different number of legs.