Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

1a3orn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–405 of 405 posts

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#401

Post by Simon_ORourke »

upwardbound wrote: post #329
Simon_ORourke wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! Good one! Let's just roll back all our healthcare research, logistics, environmental advancements etc. because some boogey man tech might do something bad perhaps at sometime in the future maybe!

The majority of our healthcare research, logistics, and environmental advancements, and most other aspects of 21st-century living can be switched over to alternative technologies that do not require computers. The main thing we will definitely lose is social media, which many people would be glad to see removed from our lives, as it provides shallow and addictive dopamine hits, much like cigarettes, while diminishing…

Who's going to agree to take on all that cost for no good reason? Why incur all that cost, even if it was feasible, for a mere unquantified possibility of something bad happening. Even if there was a firm date and "bad stuff" readily understood, e.g., Skynet going self-aware sometime in mid 2037, then folks will just do the bare minimum to forestall it at minimum cost.

Social media is going nowhere, especially if it currently makes money, just because of some idea of it potentially being bad.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#402

Post by reissbaker »

foo3a9c4 wrote: post #400
reissbaker wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My arguments are: (P1) Current SOTA AI is good at understanding implicit context, and improved versions will likely be better at understanding implicit context (much like gpt-4 is better at understanding context than gpt-3, and llama2 is better than llama1, and mixtral is better than gpt-3 and better than claude, etc). (P2) Most misalignments within the observable behavior of current AI do not produce extinction-leve…

(I don't currently have the energy to engage with each argument, so I'm just responding to the first.) > (P1) Current SOTA AI is good at understanding implicit context, and improved versions will likely be better at understanding implicit context (much like gpt-4 is better at understanding context than gpt-3, and llama2 is better than llama1, and mixtral is better than gpt-3 and better than claude, etc). I believe th…

I am referring to "goals" as used by the original argument you posted, "it is easy to find goals that are extinction-level bad."

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#403

Post by foo3a9c4 »

reissbaker wrote: post #402
foo3a9c4 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I don't currently have the energy to engage with each argument, so I'm just responding to the first.) > (P1) Current SOTA AI is good at understanding implicit context, and improved versions will likely be better at understanding implicit context (much like gpt-4 is better at understanding context than gpt-3, and llama2 is better than llama1, and mixtral is better than gpt-3 and better than claude, etc). I believe th…

I am referring to "goals" as used by the original argument you posted, "it is easy to find goals that are extinction-level bad."

My understanding is that (P3) of the original argument (https://aiadventures.net/summaries/agi-ruin-list-of-lethalit...) uses "goals" as in (II).

But earlier you said this:

> 1. States things like "Finding goals that are extinction-level bad and relatively useful appears to be easy: for example, advanced AI with the sole objective ‘increase company.com revenue’ might be highly valuable to company.com for a time, but risks longer term harms to society, if powerfully accruing resources and power toward this end with no regard for ethics beyond laws that are still too expensive to break." But even current-gen LLMs sidestep this pretty easily, and if you ask them to increase e.g. revenue, they do not propose extinction-level events or propose eschewing basic ethics.

And in this quote it looks to me that you are using "goals" as in (III).

(I'm not an expert on these matters and I am admittedly still very confused about them. Minimally I'd like to make sure that we aren't talking past one another.)

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#404

Post by reissbaker »

foo3a9c4 wrote: post #403
reissbaker wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am referring to "goals" as used by the original argument you posted, "it is easy to find goals that are extinction-level bad."

My understanding is that (P3) of the original argument ( https://aiadventures.net/summaries/agi-ruin-list-of-lethalit... ) uses "goals" as in (II). But earlier you said this: > 1. States things like "Finding goals that are extinction-level bad and relatively useful appears to be easy: for example, advanced AI with the sole objective ‘increase company.com revenue’ might be highly valuable to company.com for a time, bu…

Sorry, I was referencing the quote "Finding goals that are extinction-level bad..." from your first link, https://wiki.aiimpacts.org/doku.php?id=arguments_for_ai_risk....

What that was referencing was finding goals that a human would want an AI to follow, e.g. "increase revenue" was one example explicit goal in the wiki the human might want an AI to follow. The argument in the wiki was that the AI would then do unethical things in service of that goal that would be "extinction-level bad." My counter-argument is that current SOTA AI already understands that despite having an explicit goal — let's say given in a prompt — of "increase revenue," there are implicit goals of "do not kill everyone" (for example) that it doesn't need stated; as LLMs advance they have become better at understanding implicit human goals, and better at instruction-following with adherence to implicit goals; and thus future LLMs will be likely to be even better at doing that, and unlikely to e.g. resurface the planet and turn it into an AI lab when told to increase revenue or told to produce better-aligned AI.

Re: Many AI safety orgs have tried to criminalize currently-existing open-source AI

#405

Post by Llamamoe »

kragen wrote: post #52
Llamamoe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The by far biggest harm to society of AI is the devalustion of human creative output and replacing real humans with cheap AI solutions funneling wealth to the rich. Compared to that, an open source LLM telling a curious teenager how to make gunpowder is... laughable. This entire debacle is an example of disgusting "think of the children!" doublespeak, officially about safety, but really about locking shit down under…

if the 'devalustion' of human creative output and replacing real humans with cheap ai solutions funneling wealth to the rich is in fact the 'by far biggest harm' then basically there's nothing to worry about. no government would ban or even restrict ai on those grounds even the 'terrists can figure out how to build an a-bomb' problem is relatively inconsequential what ai safety people are worried about, by contrast,…

I'll take every person keeling over dead in pursuit of paperclip maximization over a corporation effectively enslaving the entirety of humanity to farm "value" out of them as though they're livestock, a threat that is already happening faster and faster thanks to sub-AGI models.
Post reply on HN