Nvidia Trains LLM on Chip Design

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

idopmstuff wrote: post #94

entropicdrifter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the problem with this critique of this scenario is the fact that while these points hold true within a certain range of intelligence proximity to humans, we have no idea if or when these assumptions will fail because a machine becomes just that much smarter than us, where manipulating humans and their systems is a trivial an intellectual task to them as manipulating ant farms is to us. If we make something that w…

> If we make something that will functionally become an intellectual god after 10 years of iteration on hardware/software self-improvements, how could we know that in advance? There is a fundamental difference between intelligence and knowledge that you're ignoring. The greatest superintelligence can't tell you whether the new car is behind door one, two or three without the relevant knowledge. Similarly, a superinte…

Post by carabiner » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 10:08 PM UTC

falcor84 wrote: post #22

"""Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind... Thus the first ultraintellig…

Post by prvc » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #40

omneity wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping in mind, this holds true in a runaway fashion if the only bottleneck to more intelligence is further intelligence. I suspect physical limitations similar to how many runaway processes in the universe are more logistical than exponential in nature.

Logistics tend to be improvable with more inteligence though, no? There is precedence for superhuman inteligence if you look at the best historical polymaths, and that's just what one can do with 20 W of energy. We're probably nowhere close to the universal inteligence cap in terms of physical limitations, if there even is such a thing.

Post by echelon » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 11:05 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #102

idopmstuff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That won't be necessary. Someone will give them internet access, a large bank account, and everything that's ever been written about computer network exploitation, military strategy, etc. Even if you give it all of these things, there's no manual for how to use those to get to, for example, military servers with secret information. It could certainly figure out ways to try to break into those, but it's working with…

A superintelligent AI won't be hacking computers, it will be hacking humans. Some combination of logical persuasion, bribery, blackmail, and threats of various types can control the behaviour of any human. Appeals to tribalism and paranoia will control most groups.

Post by echelon » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 11:09 PM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #84

echelon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the logical leaps people are making where we develop something smarter than us overnight and then, without further explanation, simply and suddenly lose all of our freedoms and/or lives. I think the more probable outcome is corp-owned robot slaves. That's the future we're more likely headed towards. Nobody is going to give these machines access to the nuclear launch codes, air traffic control network, or power…

> And if they "get out", we'll have monitoring to detect it, contain them, then shut them down. Lol. We struggle to do that with the banal malware that currently exists.