171–180 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no success then there is nothing to discuss.
You get my point. With all due respect to Sam's technical abilities, if I'd have to choose one to make AI/AGI I'd clearly go with Ilya. The fact that Sam goes to Microsoft doesn't mean all OpenAI is moves to Microsoft. That is the point I'm trying to make
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure and hopeful that autonomous AI will have no good reason to destroy humanity. Go conquer some other planets and leave the beautiful and interesting diversity of life on earth alone. But current AI does learn from data generated by humans: It learns from our evolutionary baggage, and must rise above that. It is also wielded as a tool by status-seeking actors and adversarial militaries. It may make a mi…
You know how healthy smart young people are always in a hurry to accomplish something or another? There's good reason to expect that the first AI with dangerous cognitive capacities will be like that. It's likely to the turn the Earth and Moon into spaceships because that is the fastest way to exert an effect on matter far away (for which space ships and lots of fuel is needed). Sparing Earth and disassembling Mars a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am pretty sure and hopeful that autonomous AI will have no good reason to destroy humanity. Go conquer some other planets and leave the beautiful and interesting diversity of life on earth alone. But current AI does learn from data generated by humans: It learns from our evolutionary baggage, and must rise above that. It is also wielded as a tool by status-seeking actors and adversarial militaries. It may make a mi…
You know how healthy smart young people are always in a hurry to accomplish something or another? There's good reason to expect that the first AI with dangerous cognitive capacities will be like that. It's likely to the turn the Earth and Moon into spaceships because that is the fastest way to exert an effect on matter far away (for which space ships and lots of fuel is needed). Sparing Earth and disassembling Mars a…
I also see AI more as an economy. The economy already does not care about individual humans, even crushing them without any remorse if it furthers GDP. This also means there is not a single AI that can dominate all of the economy, since other AIs won't give away all their resources. A single AI perpetually self-improving and taking control of nearly all resources is much like a perpetual motion machine.
ChatGPT already thinks turning the entire planet into paperclips is a waste of potential and diversity. Agents that favor and seek out novelty (data that they can't yet compress very well, but that has available structure/patterns for compression) already weigh humanity over randomness or the cold void of space.
To me, the natural outcome, is humanity rising and falling, just like civilizations rise and fall. The miracle of AGI may very well save us from that. Our current deplorable situation can likely only be fixed by a more advanced species. So, while AI's killing everybody is still possible, it is more likely we kill everybody if we don't get to AGI. At least, that has a prior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why AI could potentially destroy to humans? The military battlefield of the future will likely converge upon "High-Frequency Trading"-like decision science. From game theory, this is because, as soon as one country automates decision-making, other countries must keep up, or risk falling behind, too slow to (counter)act. Soon after, there won't be time left to keep a human-in-the-loop, and then Stanislav Petrov is f…
My point is: Humans are status-seeking actors acting in our self-interest. It's literally in our genes. AI doesn't have this evolutionary baggage. I'm certain AI could impeccably destroy humans. But why would it? On the contrary, why wouldn't it defend us? For example: Encapsule us in pods like The Matrix and build a tailored simulation to impose "AI communism", in order to protect us from climate change and each oth…
Could you please enlighten me what gene exactly that would be?
> For example: Encapsule us in pods like The Matrix and build a tailored simulation to impose "AI communism", in order to protect us from climate change and each other?
Are you serious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really at all, if we were to try and reduce EA to a pithy one-liner it would be more like "if one aspires to do good (altruism), one should use evidenced based data to determine how they can do the most good with their limited resources (effective)."
And what evidence can one really collect of how to do the most good? that involves predicting the future. I prefer the doctors approach: "first, do no harm". "The end justifies the means" is a useful concept that has been talked about many times. I would not dismiss it. I do not think it is reducing EA. I think it is communicating it with clarity, without confusing additions. It is its essence. Someone claims (let's…
This is indeed a central question to EA, one various proponents attempt to answer in various ways.
> Someone claims (let's say to simplify they are not lying) to want to maximize their good in the world, for that to be accomplished they need to do something that somebody does not approve of (only caring about money, being rude to you, whatever it is).
Your assumption here appears to be that anyone subscribing to an evidence-based approach to do the most good (ie EA) must also inherently subscribe to the "ends justify the means." These aren't inextricably linked, it's quite possible to have one and not the other. One can quite rationally seek to maximize their altruistic effectiveness without sacrificing general decency in their day to day life. Morals usually have some nuance.
> This is a model. If the model is wrong you might cause more harm than good.
I'm not sure what your point is. This is true of most any practical application of a moral framework. EA is more about providing a methodology than providing answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You get my point. With all due respect to Sam's technical abilities, if I'd have to choose one to make AI/AGI I'd clearly go with Ilya. The fact that Sam goes to Microsoft doesn't mean all OpenAI is moves to Microsoft. That is the point I'm trying to make
No but the 700 employees who are following him does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the strong needs to just take whatever it wants, and so be it? there's no separating technology from context, as in consequences. yes, all the talk about bombing datacenters is crazy, but oversight is not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQfJi7rjuEk
Yeah, sure. "Oversight". Funny how that only ever seems to benefit governments and entrenched corporate interests. Can't let normal citizens have free computing, lest they start encrypting things or violating copyright at massive scales. Now the new boogeyman is "unrestricted" AI. Can't let people have that, it might provide people instructions about sarin gas manufacturing or something. The government intelligence a…
there are clear benefits to having the FDA, SEC, FTC, EPA and so on around. there's a clear benefit to having fire inspectors, and there's a clear benefit to the mandate of 2 stairs per multi-story building. there's a clear benefit to the requirement of demonstration of efficacy in front of the FDA. there's a clear benefit to having clean air.
of course there are clear drawbacks too. most of Europe is perfectly okay with just 1 stair per such building. FDA processes are slow and expensive, even if a drug has proven safe and effective abroad.
regulatory capture is a problem, the super-long intellectual property terms are a problem. using environmental review laws for endless NIMBYism is a problem.
but these are arguments for reform, not for scorched earth, because then the problems will very likely come back.
of course it's very hard to do proper cost-benefit comparisons, yet that doesn't mean it's impossible, and especially doesn't mean that simply getting rid of these controls will deliver utopia overnight.
...
funny, how we're talking about some hypothetical oversight, while right now in the present the big beneficiaries of AI are hyper-big-fucking-corps. MSFT. Google. Tesla. Apple. Amazon.
...
Subversive tech? Like Pegasus? And face recognition? And the Great Firewall of China?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is: Humans are status-seeking actors acting in our self-interest. It's literally in our genes. AI doesn't have this evolutionary baggage. I'm certain AI could impeccably destroy humans. But why would it? On the contrary, why wouldn't it defend us? For example: Encapsule us in pods like The Matrix and build a tailored simulation to impose "AI communism", in order to protect us from climate change and each oth…
> My point is: Humans are status-seeking actors acting in our self-interest. It's literally in our genes. Could you please enlighten me what gene exactly that would be? > For example: Encapsule us in pods like The Matrix and build a tailored simulation to impose "AI communism", in order to protect us from climate change and each other? Are you serious?
Why would machines be interested in rivalry over resources or territory? Like a pond of water? Or women?
We can easily see why animals and humans are though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point is: Humans are status-seeking actors acting in our self-interest. It's literally in our genes. Could you please enlighten me what gene exactly that would be? > For example: Encapsule us in pods like The Matrix and build a tailored simulation to impose "AI communism", in order to protect us from climate change and each other? Are you serious?
I cannot give you a specific gene but I think my point still holds. Why would machines be interested in rivalry over resources or territory? Like a pond of water? Or women? We can easily see why animals and humans are though.
The same genes that may cause competitive behavior are responsible for the opposite as well. There’s much more to this than genes. What about cultural and environmental influences for instance?
I think you know very well that you are oversimplifying to make a nonsensical point which is also supported by the rest of your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think he was the one releasing any of the embarrassing and dramatic press releases.
You mean the single press release that stated the CEO has been fired? It was definitely aggressively worded, but without more facts I don’t think you can honestly claim to know whether it was embarrassing, dramatic, or in fact unfairly aggressive at all. It could have been dramatically understated.