[deleted]
Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
51–60 of 161 posts
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#52> OpenAI and others have proposed that licenses would be required only for the most powerful models, above a certain training compute threshold. Perhaps that is more feasible
Somebody is bound to figure out how to beat threshold sooner or later. And given the advances in GPU technology, this compute threshold will itself keep going down exponentially. This is a dumb idea.
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#53I think this is missing the key change licensing would effect: it would crush the profit margins involved. I think that alone would drastically reduce 'AI risk' (or more importantly the negative effects of AI) because it would remove the motivation to build a company like OpenAI.
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#54Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed “safe” models responsible for deleterious effects on society, with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. Legislating around the model is missing the point. There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intell…
> There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence is even plausible Really? There is a lot of theory behind why this is likely to happen and if you want a real example there is a similar existing scenario we can look at, which is how humans have gone through an exponential runaway explosion in capabilities in the last few hundred years because of being more intelligent than other species and being able to…
Theory is not actually a form of evidence.
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In addition, even for current AI we don’t even fully understand what we are doing" That is the problem, don't you get it?
If that’s your concern than lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them. If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we would have never left the caves. Complete understanding is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the litmus test is a fallacy. We can debate what the current evidence shows, and even disagree about it, but to act as if only one par…
“lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them”
Yes, let’s do that! That’s what I was arguing for in my original comment. I was not arguing for only big corporations being able to use powerful AI, that will only make it worse by harming research, I just want people to consider what is often called a “sci-fi” scenario properly so we can try to solve it like we’re trying to solve e.g. climate change.
It might be necessary to buy some time by slowing down the development of large models, but there should be no exceptions for big companies.
“That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power”
Probably true, though if it’s intelligent enough it won’t really matter
“That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion.”
It definitely could do if done improperly, that’s why we need research and care
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pareto improvements don't always exist.
I’m suggesting we (AI) can find alternative and preferable “games”.
Delegating the structure of engagement to a pattern matcher doesn't change fundamentals. Consider Arrow's Impossibility Theorem: can't have all the nice properties of a social choice function without a dictator. So your AI needs to have higher level definitions in its objective to achieve some allocative efficiency. Examples abound, common ones are utilitarianism (don't use this one, this results in bad outcomes) and egalitarianism. Fortunately, we can choose this with both eyes open.
The field that considers this type of research is Mechanism Design, an inverse to Game Theory where you design for a desired outcome through incentives.
Would it be correct to suggest your suggestion to delegate to AI the design of games means you trust people are ineffectual at identifying when certain game types, such as zero sum games, are all that are possible?
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#57To phrase it more succinctly: it's a stupid idea because a 12 year old teenager will be able to train these models on their phone in a few years. This is fundamentally different from enriching Uranium.
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence is even plausible Really? There is a lot of theory behind why this is likely to happen and if you want a real example there is a similar existing scenario we can look at, which is how humans have gone through an exponential runaway explosion in capabilities in the last few hundred years because of being more intelligent than other species and being able to…
Theory is not actually a form of evidence.
Theory can be used to predict things with reasonable confidence. It could be wrong, but assuming it’s wrong is a big risk to take. Also I gave a real-world analogy that has actually happened
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what th…
Google and others had similar products which were never released. No wonder why. There are literally billions of people that can be empowered by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of thousands of “one in a million” intellects are given access to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich incumbents have reason to be worried. The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already pos…
Google probably held back because a good searchbot cannibalizes their search (which is constantly getting worse and worse for years now..)
Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans evolved unsupervised. AI is highly supervised. The idea that an AI will enslave us all is as absurd as suggesting “computers” will enslave us all merely because they exist. Models are designed and operated by people for specific use cases. The real risks are people using this new tool for evil, not the tool itself. AI sentience is a seductive concept being used by self professed experts to draw attention to th…
It’s almost impossible to supervise something more intelligent than you because you can’t tell why it’s doing things. For now it’s easy to supervise them because AIs are way less intelligent than humans (though even now it’s hard to tell exactly why they’re doing things), but in the future it probably won’t be
"Supervised" does not mean the models need babysitting; it refers to the fundamental way the systems learn. Our most successful machine learning models all require some answers to be provided to them in order to infer the rules. Without being given explicit feedback they can't learn anything at all.
Humans also do best with supervised learning. This is why we have schools. But humans are capable of unsupervised learning and use it all the time. A human can learn patterns even in completely unstructured information. A human is also able to create their own feedback by testing their beliefs against the world.