81–90 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Has a corporation ever tried to commit genocide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I'm not totally convinced humans don't have a tremendous amount of training data - interacting with the world for years with constant input from all our senses and parental corrections. I bet if you add up that data it's a lot. But once we are partially trained, training more requires a lot less.
> I bet if you add up that data it's a lot. Let's Fermi estimate that. A 4k video stream is about 50 megabits/second. Let's say that humans have the equivalent of two of those going during waking hours, one for vision and one for everything else. Humans are awake for 18 hours/day, and we'll say a human's training is 'complete' at 25. Multiply that together, and you end up with 1.8e17 bytes, or 180 petabytes of data.…
Uncompressed rates are easy to calculate if wanting to adjust your approximation:
24-bit, 4K UHD @ 60 fps: 24 × 3840 × 2160 × 60 = 11.9 Gbit/s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Except that it's a big open question how to control an AGI. So the choice may not be between which entity controls it, but whether it is created by an entity that is able to control it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be dangerous, but how is it useless? There is also an enormous positive gain to be had in terms of autonomous discovery, science progress and so on. And prisoner's dilemma means "we" will not stop pursuing this, even of there is a net negative benefit to humanity overall.
Yes, I believe there is a net negative benefit. I do not think there is an enormous positive gain. Science progress in my opinion has gone too far in many respects and we should not be able to generate science so easily because we will not have the wisdom to use it. Although I love science, it's use is far too lackadaisical now -- see for example the climate crisis and efficient resource extraction of fossil fuels. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Except that it's a big open question how to control an AGI. So the choice may not be between which entity controls it, but whether it is created by an entity that is able to control it at all.
However, we have seen with other AI models that as soon as something useful is proved possible, we can expect rapid reductions in the amount of compute necessary to achieve the same.
I'm sure the government's mission is also to develop an AGI that benefits us all.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Even in that scenario, I'm not really sure what the distinction would end up being. At least in the US, our government and corporations are so tightly coupled at this point that we're really toeing the waters of Fascism.
If a corporation develops an AGI our government can have access to it whenever they deem necessary. And if a government wants to develop one they will almost certainly partner with corporations to do it. I'm sure the military and intelligence agencies have their own projects running, but they'd accelerate by partnering with and funding corporate projects and research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Has a corporation ever tried to commit genocide?
It may be hard to directly peg weapons manufacturers with genocide though Nazi-era chemical research absolutely played a role in the Holocaust.
For a more recent example, there are companies that play the role of mercenary armies. They have committed various atrocities, war crimes, and at least played a role in genocide.
I'm sure the government's mission is also to develop an AGI that benefits us all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally no one person or entity controls such a thing. But, would I rather have a Government, or a corporation control AGI? If I had to pick one of two evils, the Government would be the lesser of the two.
Except that it's a big open question how to control an AGI. So the choice may not be between which entity controls it, but whether it is created by an entity that is able to control it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that it's a big open question how to control an AGI. So the choice may not be between which entity controls it, but whether it is created by an entity that is able to control it at all.
At least initially, any AGI is likely to be limited by compute capacity. Ie. it might have greater-than-human intelligence, but is only able to make a certain number of decisions/actions per day. However, we have seen with other AI models that as soon as something useful is proved possible, we can expect rapid reductions in the amount of compute necessary to achieve the same.