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

Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 508 posts

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#91

Post by llamaimperative »

bambax wrote: post #49
camillomiller wrote: post #13

Why do we give this people credit by giving for granted that AGI is somehow magically around the corner? It is not, and everyone’s delusional.

Yes! It's debatable current models demonstrate any kind of "intelligence", but AGI is so far off it's ridiculous to even mention it. But not everyone's delusional. Here's what Yann Le Cun is currently saying: > It seems to me that before "urgently figuring out how to control AI systems much smarter than us" we need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat. and > don't confuse…

Okay, so describe to me when and how we’ll detect and mitigate problems as we approach AGI or superintelligence.

The promise of upside grows exactly in lockstep with the danger of downside.

It is absolutely rational to say: “if our AI safety research lab is being hijacked by commercial interests before it’s even commercially viable as a business, then how will we possibly pull the plug on the final descent?”

P.S. neither Yann nor me nor you nor Sam nor Greg know what “real intelligence” is, and we certainly don’t know what superhuman intelligence is just the same way an ant couldn’t possibly know what human intelligence is. It is inconceivable to us — that is the point of intelligence.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#93

Post by _heimdall »

Paraphrasing a bit, and pulling in other recent OpenAI mews.

"We know AGI is risky, and we've stated that while also shipping new products every 6 months. We hope you are excited by the recent announcement that OpenAI is looking into how to allow our customers to responsibly generate erotica, and want you to know that we are doing this with full concern of the risks and potential outcomes. We look forward to offering multimodal interactions with models so life-like that you may not realize you are interacting with a computer at all. And rest assured, we've fully thought through and planned for the potential dangers of such a future."

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#94

Post by m3kw9 »

skepticATX wrote: post #2

Interesting that OpenAI has completely destroyed their reputation over the last year. For me, they've gone from an admirable company to cringe-worthy. I really think that the best outcome here is for OpenAI to collapse and get absorbed by Microsoft, where adults can continue some of the good work that is being overshadowed by ego and cult-like vibes.

I’m not getting how OpenAIs reputation is being tarnished from all of basically amounting to nothing but theatrical stuff that amounts to people saying Sam is out to destroy the world, none of which is even close to happening, with every entity in earth developing the same tech.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#95

Post by m3kw9 »

nicce wrote: post #81
primer42 wrote: post #52

Safe for whom or what? Who are we protecting from AI again? Are they aiming to protect the interests of the many, or the interest of a few?

We need protection from people who control AI. Who will provide that…

A lot of hand waving from those words. Right now LLM isn’t more dangerous than harmful google results. The future where AI sends a terminator to destroy us is the part I’m having issues with

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#97

Post by _heimdall »

zer00eyz wrote: post #87
consumer451 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seem to be only three options here: 1) AGI is not around the corner, so no worries 2) He no longer cares about the possible negative effects, a departure from his past statements 3) I missed something, please help me learn

> 1) AGI is not around the corner, so no worries I agree with this. I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. > He no longer cares ... I missed something Sam was gone, none of these people spoke up, and now they are leaving. I think the story is plain as day but we're pretending it isnt. Sam isnt a leade…

> I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984.

AI Safety will inevitably look a lot like DEI programs. They're trying to thread a needle with two fundamentally opposed ideas, and with a bit of time it turns into little more than a combination of Cover Your Ass policies.

The ridiculous thing is that we actually need initiatives that follow what both AI safety and DEI set out to be. Somehow along the way they get ruined though, leaving us in an even worse spot because for a while we have an excuse to think there are adults in the room actually making sure things are moving in the right direction.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#99

Post by m3kw9 »

behnamoh wrote: post #8

Any one noticed how Sam sometimes intentionally tries to attack his own work? For example, he has said GPT-2 was very bad, GPT-3 was bad, and GPT-4 is okay. He also fed the AI doomers by talking about AGI dangers and how the world needs to watch out for a future AI catastrophe. He just gives off the vibe of someone trying to act humble but I don't know how much of it is just an act and how much is real. I've never se…

By saying they have a 10x better product in the pipeline

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#100

Post by m3kw9 »

troupo wrote: post #10

> called for international governance of AGI before such calls were popular And immediately threatened to pull out of EU if such governance were ever put in place > we have been putting in place the foundations needed for safe deployment of increasingly capable systems. Figuring out how to make a new technology safe for the first time isn't easy. Especially when "OpenAI" is anything but open. > This includes thoughtf…

Translation: we put in these show “safe guards” to satisfy the law and people peoples nightmare after watching [your AI extinction movie here], but we already had enough safe guards to begin with. They also do not wish to die if you think they have no incentive to keep everyone safe.
Post reply on HN