Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

Post by toth » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 10:31 AM UTC

nazka wrote: post #290

toth wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be very difficult, but if you think about nuclear weapons it doesn't sound so hopeless. First nuclear weapons were used in 1945, almost 80 years ago. Today, out of ~ 200 countries in the world only 9 have nukes. Of those, only 4 did it after Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty. South Africa had them and gave them up under international pressure. Ukraine and other former soviet republics voluntarily ga…

Getting uranium, the hardware to have nukes, and all the research and production around it is hard without being detected. Starting to code AI on a Mac and a few good GPUs or even a cluster without being detected is crazy easy. Even if they start to treat the most powerful GPUs as small nukes and only a few can have them it’s super easy to steal, transport, store, use… Nukes not so much.

Post by varjag » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 10:32 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #288

jeffparsons wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on there being _some chance_ that it can be achieved. The benchmark strategy we are comparing it against is tantamount to licking a wall repeatedly and expecting that to achieve something. So even a strategy that may well fail but has _some_ chance of success is a lot better by default.

Not with this. Failure to align a powerful AI is a mistake we only get to make once. This is like playing Russian roulette, where the amount of bullets missing from the magazine is the degree to which we can properly align the AI. Right now, we're at "the magazine is full, and we're betting our survival on the gun getting jammed".

Post by dnissley » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 10:32 AM UTC

lewhoo wrote: post #295

dnissley wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best argument against human cloning/gmo is simply that we can't do this well on other animal species just yet, so probably we should be hold off on the humans. It's hyper pragmatic from an ethics perspective, not a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses at all.

I'm no expert but I actually think we are pretty good at genetically modifying organisms and that manifests itself in crops for instance with enough research to support the benefits.

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 10:33 AM UTC

sebastianz wrote: post #244

TeMPOraL wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With threat of military intervention. People have been talking about curtailing carbon emissions for 50 years, but they haven't been serious about it. Being serious doesn't look like saying "oh shoot, we said we will... try to keep emissions down, but we didn't... even try; sorry...". Being serous looks like "stop now, or we will eminent domain your data centre from under you via an emergency court order, or failing…

> With threat of military intervention. I assume you are american, right? Cause that sounds pretty american. Although I suppose you might also be chinese or russian, they also like that solution a lot. Whichever of those you are, I'm sure your side is definitely the one with all the right answers, and will be a valiant and correct ruler of the world, blessing us all with your great values.

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Nov 02, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

varjag wrote: post #303

TeMPOraL wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with this. Failure to align a powerful AI is a mistake we only get to make once. This is like playing Russian roulette, where the amount of bullets missing from the magazine is the degree to which we can properly align the AI. Right now, we're at "the magazine is full, and we're betting our survival on the gun getting jammed".

Assuming you mean drum here; it's pointless to play russian roulette with a magazine fed weapon (which in a way could be an own metaphor for this predicament).