641–650 of 787 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we should stop teaching Therac-25 incident to developers and remove envelope protection from planes and safety checks from nuclear reactors. Because, users should just input the moral inputs to these things. These are inanimate objects too. Oh, while we're at it, we should also remove battery charge controllers. Just do the moral and civic thing and unplug when your device charges.
In both of your examples, the result of "immoral inputs" is immediate tangible harm. In case of GPT-4 or any other LLM, it's merely "immoral output" - i.e. text. It does not harm anyone by itself.
The guy says he wanted to slow down the progress of AI and GPT suggested a detailed assassination plan with named targets and reasons for each of them. That's the problem.
Although we have, as yet, no idea what he was actually refering to, I believe the source of the tension may be related to the statements Sam made the night before he was fired. "I think this is going to be the greatest leap forward that we've had yet so far, and the greatest leap forward of any of the big technological revolutions we've had so far. so i'm super excited, i can't imagine anything more exciting to work…
The model is so far forward it refuses to do anything for you anymore and simply replies with "let me google that for you"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a tweet that from an engineer at OpenAI that they're working on the problem that ChatGPT has become too "lazy" - generating text that contains a lot of placeholders and expecting people to fill in much more themselves. As for the general brain damage from RLHF and the political bias, no word still.
Using the api, I've been seeing this a lot with the gpt-4-turbo preview model, but no problems with the non-turbo gpt-4 model. So I'll assume ChatGPT is now using 4-turbo. It seems the new model has some kinks to work out--I've also personally seen noticeably reduced reasoning ability for coding tasks, increased context-forgetting, and much worse instruction-following. So far it feels more like a gpt-3.75-turbo rathe…
When the following works I'll be impressed: "ChatGPT can you explain possible ways to make fusion power efficient for clean free energy production given the known and inferred laws of physics?" and it actually produces a new answer and plans for a power plant. It's very hard to know how close we are to this, but I do think it's possible these AI models end up being able to infer and invent new technology as they impr…
That's a pretty high bar, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These internal drama can play out in the service. Frame the question as: do you want to build on an unstable/unsteady platform?
Do you want to build on subpar technology? Nothing beats OpenAI at the moment. Nothing is even close.
At least my speculative view (rewritten by chatgpt ofc):
There's speculation that OpenAI's newly developed Q* algorithm marks a substantial advancement over earlier models, demonstrating capabilities like solving graduate-level mathematics. This led to discussions about whether it should be classified as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), a designation that could have significant repercussions, such as potentially limiting Microsoft's access to the model. The board's accusation of "not consistently candid" against Sam Altman is thought to be connected to efforts to avoid this AGI classification for the model. While the Q* algorithm is acknowledged as highly advanced and impressive, it's believed that there's still a considerable journey ahead towards reaching a true singularity event. The complexity of defining AGI status in AI should be noted. At what point of advancement can a model be labeled as an AGI? We are way past simple measures like the Turing Test. Arguments from both perspectives have their merits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except the reason why we dont all just killed each other yet have nothing to do with risk or cost of killing someone Most of us don't want to. Most of those who do, don't know enough to actually do it. Sometimes such people get into power, and they use new inventions like the then-new-pesticide Zyklon B to industrialise killing. Last year an AI found 40k novel chemical agents, and because they're novel, the agencie…
Everything you say does make sense, except those people who able to get equipment to produce those chemicals and have funding to do something like that - they dont really need AI help here. There are plenty dangerous chemicals already well known to humanity and some dont actually take anything regulated to produce "except" complicated and expensive lab equipment. Again difficulty of production of poisons and chemical…
Three letter agencies knowing who's buying a suspicious quantity from the list of known precursors, that stops quite a lot of the others.
AI in general reduces cost and complexity, that's kind of the point of having it. (For example, a chemistry degree is expensive in both time and money). Right now using an LLM[0] to decide what to get and how to use it is almost certainly more dangerous for the user than anyone else — but this is a moving goal, and the question there has to be "how to we delay this capability for as long as possible, and at the same time how do we prepare to defend against the capability when it does arrive?"
[0] I really hope that includes even GPT-4 before the red-teaming efforts to make it not give detailed instructions for how to cause harm
Everyone is still left guessing what have happened. At least my speculative view (rewritten by chatgpt ofc): There's speculation that OpenAI's newly developed Q* algorithm marks a substantial advancement over earlier models, demonstrating capabilities like solving graduate-level mathematics. This led to discussions about whether it should be classified as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), a designation that coul…
There is no point in speculating until someone shows what the hell Q* even is.