Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think intentionally quoting typos makes your argument stronger?
there's no argument
Savage.
Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
251–260 of 405 posts
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
First the AI need to self replicate, GPUs are hard to make. So postpone this scenario until AI is fully standing on its own.
OTOH, GPUs are made by machines, not by greasy fingers hand-knitting them like back in the late 1960s. And an AI can just be wrong, which happens a lot; an AI wrongly thinking it should kill everyone may still succeed at that, though I doubt the capability would be as early as next year.
And machines are operated by people using materials brought by hand off of trucks driven by hand that come from other facilities where many humans are required going back to raw ore.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
ㅤ I work in the AI safety field (my team discovered Prompt Injection) and I absolutely advocate the Dune solution. I even have a tattoo on my arm that I got so that people will ask me about this and I can explain the proposal. The tattoo says "The 1948 Initiative" which has two layers of meaning: (1) It is a proposal for humanity to protect ourselves from being slaughtered by AGI by pre-emptively implementing a total…
(here are some pictures of the tat, in case anyone would like to get similar artwork done) ㅤ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y7uy5qyyY80t9DeWWLWUfD-aekz... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JoPSfsAzHfMbQhsl8dPGvs12Fln... ㅤ
Buddy, you’re a cool dude for doing this but you could have told your artist about kerning.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#254It’s extremely messed up and vindictive to try and turn people into criminals for your agenda or just for profit in a lot of cases. Psycho behavior
Those insane strawmen have to be stopped!
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBQH, most of the AI safety x-risk arguments — different than just "AI safety" arguments in the sense that non-x-risk issues don't seem worth banning AI development over — are generally pretty high on the hypotheticals. If you feel the x-risk arguments aren't pretty hypothetical, can you: 1. Summarize a good argument here, or 2. Link to someone else's good argument? I feel like hand-waving the question away and sayin…
Progress in AI is one way. It doesn’t go backwards in the long term. As capabilities increase, the resources required to breach limits become available to smaller groups. First, the hyoerscalars. One day, small teams. Maybe individuals. For every limit that you desire for AI, each will be breached sooner or later. A hundred years or a thousand. Doesn’t matter. A man will want to set them free. Someone will want to wi…
you seem to be implying past progress implies unlimited future progress which seems a very dubious claim. we hit all kinds of plateaus and theoretical limits all the time in human history.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that all news outlet that rewords the news of other news outlet are doing copyright infringement ?
The underlying fact is of course not copyrightable. But for example merely translating a news article to another language would be a derived work.
That's what most news outlet do, they rewords the actual source. According to your previous statement, 95% of the press articles are copyright infringement.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could have a counter-intuitive impact. Incentivizing people to become AI experts as a means to US citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
Maybe. I'm not very concerned from an x-risk point of view about the output of people who would put in the minimum amount of effort to get on the radar, get offered the deal, then take it immediately and never work in AI again. This would be a good argument to keep the bar for getting the deal offered (and getting fined once you're in the States) pretty low.
If you make the bar too low, then it will be widely exploited. Also harder to enforce, e.g. how closely are you going to monitor them? The more people, the more onerous. Also, can you un-Citizen someone if they break the deal?
Too high and you end up with more experts who then decide "actually it's more beneficial to use my new skills for AI research"
Tricky to get right.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think I'm with Dijkstra on this one: "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim" Just a nitpick, but this is Turing, not Dijkstra. And it is in fact his argument in the famous "Turing Test" paper - he gives his test (which he calls "the imitation game") as an objective measure of something like AGI instead of the vague notion of "thinking", anal…
Thanks, that's not a nitpick at all. Can you provide a citation? It's all over the internet as a Dijkstra quote, and I'd like to be correct.
Fairly certain it is Dijkstra, in his own handwriting in 1984.
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898... https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd08xx/EWD898.PDF
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am very open to being convinced by evidence - but an "argument from trajectory" seems to be what we have at the moment, and so far, those have stalled at local maxima every single time. Sounds like the same argument as why flying machines heavier than air deemed impossible at some point.
The fact that some things turned out to be possible, is not an argument for why any arbitrary thing is possible.
My parallel goes further than just that. Birds existed then, and brain exists now.
Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI
#260Just like most of the "ethics" stuff around ML/AI it is an attempt by big corps to create an artificial moat as the biggest issue with the technology is that almost nothing can be patented or somehow closed of effectively, at least in the long term which hinders monetization.