71–80 of 190 posts
>biological threat creation process (ideation, acquisition, magnification, formulation, and release) I remember watching a hacker/programmer who was livestreaming how to datamine the rna of the corona virus when covid first started. One of the crazy things he rambled about was how cheap it is for a layman to download a copy of it and synthesize it with some rna printing service. I haven't thought about that possibili…
Was it Geohot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what's the premise here? this thing will become iteratively better until it could potentially be capable of bad outcomes? It certainly could. More likely, if an LLM is used, it will be as a piece integrating various specialized agents. I, not an expert in AI interpretability or alignment research, can't say if what they're doing is worthwhile or not in addressing existential risk. But I also don't know if actual ex…
i wouldn't worry too much about this. if people were being serious, rather than cynically weaponizing non-expert anxieties in pursuit of regulatory capture or marketing, the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply utilizing the DRM resources already built into every computing device on the planet, to disable hardware in the event the program on it does bad things.
A sentence beginning with this is, I can pretty much guarantee, never going to end in truth.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why remotely bricking every computer on Earth (or even just a subset known to be infected, which might reside in a hostile nation) might not be pragmatic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% likely. Several projects, right now. GPT-4 is the best model currently available. There are reasons why it's better to control a model and host yourself etc etc, but there are also reasons to use the best model available.
... I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think maybe you have bought into the purposely exaggerated marketing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% likely. Several projects, right now. GPT-4 is the best model currently available. There are reasons why it's better to control a model and host yourself etc etc, but there are also reasons to use the best model available.
The definition of “best” has a lot of factors. Best general purpose LLM chat? I’d agree there, but there’s so much more to LLM than chat applications. For some tasks I’m working on, Mixtral is the “best” solution given it can be used locally, isn’t hampered by “safety” tuning, and I can run it 24x7 on huge jobs with no costs besides the upfront investment on my GPU + electricity. I have GPT-4 open all day as my codin…
I'm not using GPT-4 for chat, but for what I'd class as "reasoning" applications. It seems best by a long shot. As for safety, I find with the api and the system prompt that there is nothing it won't answer for me. That being said... I'm not asking for anything weird. GPT-4 turbo does seem to be reluctant sometimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i wouldn't worry too much about this. if people were being serious, rather than cynically weaponizing non-expert anxieties in pursuit of regulatory capture or marketing, the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply utilizing the DRM resources already built into every computing device on the planet, to disable hardware in the event the program on it does bad things.
> the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply ... A sentence beginning with this is, I can pretty much guarantee, never going to end in truth. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why remotely bricking every computer on Earth (or even just a subset known to be infected, which might reside in a hostile nation) might not be pragmatic.
to summarize, i'm not advocating for this, i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. This is always the pattern; the "greatest minds" invent a machine to kill, then another great technician invents a machine to kill that machine, and so on. Presuming that total security can be achieved mechanically, and in that pursuit bringing abo…
> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. The alternative, not trying at all , sounds more intelligent to you? Or just easier? Many agree with you that defense is inherently harder than offense. It may even be effectively impossible to survive AGI, who knows? You don't, I can be pretty s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asking if humanity can invent a machine to protect itself from the existential threats created by the other machines it has invented to me does not sound that intelligent. The alternative, not trying at all , sounds more intelligent to you? Or just easier? Many agree with you that defense is inherently harder than offense. It may even be effectively impossible to survive AGI, who knows? You don't, I can be pretty s…
Rather than enquire into the nature of the problem, you've started with the conclusion that AGI is an existential threat, and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it. You also seem to equate intelligence with technical capability. I question all of that.
That is not correct.
> and that the only rational decisions is to figure out how to kill it.
That is also not correct and not something I claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply ... A sentence beginning with this is, I can pretty much guarantee, never going to end in truth. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why remotely bricking every computer on Earth (or even just a subset known to be infected, which might reside in a hostile nation) might not be pragmatic.
dude... the concern is /existential/ though, right?! to summarize, i'm not advocating for this, i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place.
> i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place.
More than one! Nuclear war, economic isolation, ground invasion. All kinds of nifty things we could do to stop dangerous AI. None of them are likely to happen when the risk is identified.
To summarize, any easy solution to superhuman AI trying to kill all humans you can think of in a few seconds, someone has probably already thought about.
Again bringing up post from NIH from 2022-2023 concerning this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36912594
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly that's incredibly basic, second week, cell culture stuff (first week is how to maintain the cell culture). It was probably only redacted to keep the ignorant from freaking out.
Or an intentional marketing tactic to make it seem more powerful. Redacted = dangerous