Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

chaos-engineering.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#31

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bastawhiz wrote: post #30
visarga wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run the same gradient step on multiple nodes and only credit them when they agree.

That's pointless work because there's no incentive to do the "mining" (because nobody "wins" ). If you implement a system to choose a "winner" then you didn't need the computations in the first place because you've invented proof of stake.

Why do you need to build the blockchain out of it to begin with? Just use an ordinary blockchain to send payments to people doing inference for you.

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#32

Post by damc4 »

In order to solve inequality as a result of AI, you don't need to decentralize AI, you can just decentralize the government of AI (and the AI remains centralized). And of course people who would work with that AI would be subject to the law, so if they did a different thing that people democratically decided, they would be penalized.

And that is safer because if everyone has access to the model, then people can use it in unsafe way. And it would be much more difficult to enforce the laws, when you have to control what everyone in the world does, than just one or few entities (companies, organizations, governments, whatever...). Unless it talks about decentralizing it in such way that different nodes store different parts of the model, instead of all nodes having the entire model (in that case, it's fine).

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#33

Post by byteware »

although zero knowledge proofs can compress the "proof of gradient" so it takes much less time to verify than recompute, it take orders of more work to generate the proof, moreover can we merge multiple "improvements"? if not then upon the selection of the "winner" all those are lost?

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#34

Post by nologic01 »

> All of this may sound a little ridiculous but it’s not.

Actually it is. But in perverse way it isnt.

"AI" is currently being developed and commercialized in what is essentially an old-fashioned way, with a whiff of theft of intellectual property of the training material never too far.

Decentralized AI is a distinct destination but the technologies that might realize it need not have anything remotely related to blockchain (a solution that was conceived for a different - perceived - problem, the centralization of money creation)

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#35

Post by freen »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #31
bastawhiz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pointless work because there's no incentive to do the "mining" (because nobody "wins" ). If you implement a system to choose a "winner" then you didn't need the computations in the first place because you've invented proof of stake.

Why do you need to build the blockchain out of it to begin with? Just use an ordinary blockchain to send payments to people doing inference for you.

Correct: pay for value, not useless hashing.

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#37

Post by catskul2 »

eddmakesio wrote: post #10
w4ffl35 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI safety is a joke.

A way for the humanities to get some of the CS STEM funding by writing sci-fi. Edit: The number of AI safety sessions I’ve joined where the speakers have no real AI experience talking about potentially bad futures, based on zero CS experience and little ‘evidence’ beyond existing sci-fi books and anecdotes, have left me very jaded on the subject as a ‘discipline’. I believe it comes down to three groups: AI researche…

Perhaps you'll categorize this in the first group, but I've found Robert Miles' arguments/videos to be convincing, and he was talking about it before it became particularly fashionable to do so:

https://www.youtube.com/@RobertMilesAI/videos

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#38

Post by bastawhiz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #31
bastawhiz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pointless work because there's no incentive to do the "mining" (because nobody "wins" ). If you implement a system to choose a "winner" then you didn't need the computations in the first place because you've invented proof of stake.

Why do you need to build the blockchain out of it to begin with? Just use an ordinary blockchain to send payments to people doing inference for you.

Exactly

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#39

Post by owlbite »

w4ffl35 wrote: post #7
arisAlexis wrote: post #4

Chaos engineering may sound cool and cyberpunky but it'd not what we need right now for AI safety. Unless you guys want to have your kids tortured by moloch

AI safety is a joke.

AI safety for a lot of the movie-style concerns is pretty easy: don't connect it to the f*king nuclear launch system you moron. Ensure that any output on the launch decision path is checked by a human that actually engages their brain.

(Alas if you wanted to avoid "killer robots" you're already too late, see that whole episode where a certain large military power decided that target selection of cellphones to kill due to "metadata" could be achieved by a system not unkind to the facebook algorithm, with the only safeguard some wet-behind-the-ears kid who's piloting the drone from half way around the world and a "computer says die" attitude).

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#40

Post by arisAlexis »

w4ffl35 wrote: post #7
arisAlexis wrote: post #4

Chaos engineering may sound cool and cyberpunky but it'd not what we need right now for AI safety. Unless you guys want to have your kids tortured by moloch

AI safety is a joke.

most of the most prominent AI researchers including 2 out of 3 Turing award winners + Ilya Sutskever are very very sold on AI safety. Imagine being a rando on the internet calling their research a joke. Imagine the audacity and ego. Human ego is such a weird thing.
Post reply on HN