Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

openai.com

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#21

> We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10 years I'm not a fan of allowing corporations to control and define terms like AGI and superintelligence in ways that profit them, but perhaps it is our fault as a society for not producing stricter definitions of these terms. Seems to be a pervasive problem with terms in the sci-fi domain - we have 'hoverboards' these days, for example. Putting aside that…

almost all terms are mediated by American businesses in America. Jay walking didn't exist until the car industry pushed for cars as the primary user of roads. it takes a strong government to push back. Europe is doing that but America continues to bow to "line goes up" rhetoric.

> it takes a strong government to push back. Europe is doing that but America continues to bow to "line goes up" rhetoric.

Push back against what? The definition of "super intelligence"? Isn't there already issues with how the EU defines it making their policy potentially extremely broad?

Or push back against how hypothetical future AI is regulated in 2023

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#22
post #3

> This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer and trust AI systems much smarter than them? Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives. Maybe our destiny is to be pets to machines.

I think there's a smidge too much variance in pet QoL for me to be ok with that outcome. Just ask PETA

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#23
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just defined the word with the same word -- which is what everyone seems to do. Smarter how? Where? Computers are already smarter at math, physics, simulation, etc than humans Generalized smarter? At what? Emotional intelligence? Self preservation? on and on

I mean "smart" in exactly the same way you would use the word when talking about people: "John is smarter than Paul". Or "an average college professor is smarter than an average college student". People use this word assuming others understand what it means. That's my assumption as well.

Interesting. In my experience, I would have said the use of the word “smart” almost invariably results in misunderstandings and biased comparisons. The concept is certainly used in casual conversation, but you can’t do anything serious with it.

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#24
post #3

> This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer and trust AI systems much smarter than them? Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives. Maybe our destiny is to be pets to machines.

Enjoy your tuna and beef flavored human chow.

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#26
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can do anything a human can do. So it can get up and walk down the street? Not trying to be pedantic, but when one is defining things, one needs to be precise.

Yes, when put in a robotic body.

Ok so that's no "AI" that currently exists then.

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#27
post #3

> This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer and trust AI systems much smarter than them? Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives. Maybe our destiny is to be pets to machines.

I think there's a smidge too much variance in pet QoL for me to be ok with that outcome. Just ask PETA

You're mostly right, but do not, under any circumstances, ask PETA.

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#28

> We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10 years I'm not a fan of allowing corporations to control and define terms like AGI and superintelligence in ways that profit them, but perhaps it is our fault as a society for not producing stricter definitions of these terms. Seems to be a pervasive problem with terms in the sci-fi domain - we have 'hoverboards' these days, for example. Putting aside that…

Ya I totally agree. I'm disappointed that recent AI is being rolled out in just exactly the wrong ways that I was always worried it would be:

  * AI being sold as SAAS instead of evolving on everyone's computer.
  * An emerging market writing prompts to work around primitive attempts at security in LLMs that will likely never pan out (without real trust mechanisms).
  * Security in AI being implemented as a series of hacks rather than a broad understanding of ethics (may lead to cognitive dissonance and irrational behavior like Stockholm Syndrome in artificial agents).
  * Running on the wrong type of GPU/SIMD hardware (instead of infinitely scalable CPU clusters running mainstream desktop computing languages and algorithms that could be run distributed on the web).
  * Using the most complex neural net algorithms (instead of the other dozen simpler approaches like genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, etc that accomplish the same thing since they all hill climb within a large problem space).
  * Companies training AIs on billions of parameters derived from users' private data instead of public information on the web.
  * AIs being trained to solve art/music/creative writing (which humans enjoy) instead of commercial and industrial work (which humans generally try to avoid).
  * The intelligence of AI ever-increasing while the wisdom of AI to solve big issues like climate change and automating labor to deliver UBI and liberate humanity from wage slavery being almost an afterthought.
  * OpenAI being effectively a closed and wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft (of all companies).
  * The evolution of AI being directed by billionaires and moneyed interests instead of ordinary parents, teachers, etc who could raise AIs like children, or at least interactively like Anakin and C3P0.
It sounds like they're throwing money at these problems in the form of the $10 million grant pool. Which is great, but IMHO the reason that AI advanced so slowly before this is that millions of people around the world live under forced working conditions where all of their productivity is either skimmed for profit or siphoned off for rents and consumption of staple resources.

Any one of us could have worked on interesting problems like AI, but we've spent our lives developing CRUD apps to help others work towards their goals. This is the fundamental problem that I would like to solve, across all disciplines. Perhaps by automating computer programming, so that we're all out of a job and can put our creativity towards getting real work done again. (Thankfully?) this will inevitably happen in about 10 years anyway.

So I'm looking down the road to 2033 when AGI has arrived and we're still all under the yoke working month to month to make rent, which is my worst fear. So far things are unfolding just the way I worried they would, so I've begun to think of AI as yet another weight that will begin to crush down around all of us like social media has, increasing wealth inequality to even more unbelievable levels as the vast majority of us struggle to survive.

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#29

> We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10 years This has been the case since the 60s. "could arrive within 10 years" is the tech equivalent of "maybe within our lifetimes". Nothing to see here.

Maybe we can ask it to design a commercially feasible fusion reactor for us when it arrives!

Re: OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants

#30
post #3

> This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer and trust AI systems much smarter than them? Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives. Maybe our destiny is to be pets to machines.

Enjoy your tuna and beef flavored human chow.

Is that really much worse than what's on offer at McDonald's?
Post reply on HN