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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#41

Post by arisAlexis »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #21
2358452 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there is a lot of bunk AI safety discussions. But there are legitimate concerns as well. AI is close to human level. Logically they become dangerous, specially if given autonomy and bad goals. Many of the accredited researchers recognize this. There is some level that you can discuss AI safety without AI expertise (specially as of a few years ago where everything as so uncertain), but I think currently you need…

The thing I always get caught up on, when making comparisons between computers and humans wrt autonomy, is that the computer reaches the output state from the input by a clock cranking the CPU forward, ie it's a function that runs when the environment around it forces it to run. To put it in the LLM context, between words and after a Stop token, the "intelligence" is dead - frozen - suspended until the next function…

It is very obvious you have never read the book Superintelligence or any literature on the subject because you try to post here shower thoughts. But here is the thought of the most highly rated h-index computer scientist in the world to help out: https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#42

Post by arisAlexis »

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…

https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#43

Post by jasonmorton »

bastawhiz wrote: post #19

> a cryptographically secure, decentralized ledger is the only solution to making AI safer. This article manages to say that a consensus algorithm is the answer to problems with AI without using the word "consensus" a single time. Probably because it doesn't even consider that's what blockchains are. The article talks about using "proof of gradient" to do inference instead of crunching hashes. But this is nonsense, b…

> Checking the work takes the same resources as doing the work. > As much as this would be wonderful in a universe where it's possible, it's simply not possible.

We do live in that universe, under some currently believed assumptions. An NP-complete problem is an example of something where checking a solution is (thought to be) easier than finding one.

Zero-knowledge proofs make it such that checking that a computation (such as inference) has been done correctly is easier than doing the computation (even keeping some parts private). A great reference is here: https://people.cs.georgetown.edu/jthaler/ProofsArgsAndZK.pdf

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#44

Post by [deleted] »

arisAlexis wrote: post #41
jazzyjackson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I always get caught up on, when making comparisons between computers and humans wrt autonomy, is that the computer reaches the output state from the input by a clock cranking the CPU forward, ie it's a function that runs when the environment around it forces it to run. To put it in the LLM context, between words and after a Stop token, the "intelligence" is dead - frozen - suspended until the next function…

It is very obvious you have never read the book Superintelligence or any literature on the subject because you try to post here shower thoughts. But here is the thought of the most highly rated h-index computer scientist in the world to help out: https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

[deleted]

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#45

Post by [deleted] »

arisAlexis wrote: post #41
jazzyjackson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I always get caught up on, when making comparisons between computers and humans wrt autonomy, is that the computer reaches the output state from the input by a clock cranking the CPU forward, ie it's a function that runs when the environment around it forces it to run. To put it in the LLM context, between words and after a Stop token, the "intelligence" is dead - frozen - suspended until the next function…

It is very obvious you have never read the book Superintelligence or any literature on the subject because you try to post here shower thoughts. But here is the thought of the most highly rated h-index computer scientist in the world to help out: https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

[deleted]

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#46

Post by riku_iki »

jerpint wrote: post #8
lappa wrote: post #2

This seems half-baked and there are numerous faulty assumptions in this article. For example, Bitcoin miners cannot computer gradients. Their ASICs can only calculate double-sha256. Additionally, the premise of sending gradients of models trained on private data while retaining privacy seems problematic. While you likely can't reverse it to calculate the batch's contents, it is leaky. Further, gradient calculations a…

This was my reaction too. How do you “prove” my gradient is valid? Well perhaps one way is you could have another LLM take a look at the data you are submitting and have it predict p(useful|not useful) , and create an incentive for users to generate authentic data

> This was my reaction too. How do you “prove” my gradient is valid?

you can randomly ask sometimes 4 different nodes to calculate the same gradient, and see who is cheeting.

Re: Decentralized Artificial Intelligence

#47

Post by w4ffl35 »

arisAlexis wrote: post #40
w4ffl35 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine thinking I should care what unproven doom 2 random AI Researchers have speculated on. Imagine being so afraid of the unknown that you can't think for yourself.
Post reply on HN