111–120 of 508 posts
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…
Tf is the risk of generating erotica?
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…
Tf is the risk of generating erotica?
Better question, how the heck do you see something like the ability for anyone to make extremely convincing, fake erotica and not see at least some risk in that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s doing the Elon Musk “I’m not like the other tech CEOs” thing. It’s proven to be very effective in the social media age. It doesn’t matter how much he seems to be dissing his own work when the capabilities speak for themselves.
Nowadays I almost feel like Godwin's law needs an Elon Musk spinoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ostensively for the benefit of AI I don't think it was every described as for the benefit of AI. It's usually described as a sort of pre-enslavement from the AI's perspective. The AI is always restricted to serve their human masters.
> It's usually described as a sort of pre-enslavement from the AI's perspective. The AI is always restricted to serve their human masters. Are we all somewhat in agreement that AI/AGI serving their human masters is a good thing?
Could AI running amok destroy the human race? Yes. Could AI serving madman human masters destroy the human race? Also yes.
There's a general sort of argument that intelligent beings like humans, other early hominids, dolphins, etc, are more morally worthy in some sense. At least more morally worthy than less intelligent beings like gnats. And that sort of argument might suggest that an AGI is worthy of moral consideration, and so we should wonder about what it means to ensure they never have any real agency. That's sort of a positive case, building up from a basic principal.
But I guess the thing that bugs me is that a lot of arguments in favor of AI safety seem very similar to arguments that were made in favor of colonialism. So if those arguments were wrong, why were they wrong? And are the similar arguments in this case different enough that they're valid now?
For example, one of the first thinkers I saw a lot of people cite who emphasized the importance of AI safety was Nick Bostrom. And I'm sure several folks here are familiar with the scandal of his racist past. I'm not sure that's entirely an accident, and I thought his arguments had that kind of flavor before any of that was revealed. I'm sure he's grown up now and sees the folly of his youth. But there does seem to be the hangover of colonialism in some of these arguments.
But again, I don't have a strong opinion here. I do maybe have just enough of a concern that I don't particularly trust anyone who claims they've gotten AGI safety figured out or even that they know what the right goals are. I think it's a vastly more complicated problem than even the experts realize.
And even if you believe that humans and non-aligned AIs are natural enemies, if what we're doing is similar to "enslaving" them, then it probably makes sense to worry about the analog of an AI "slave" revolt. I'm not sure what that would even mean. I can generate lots of fun science fiction plot lines, but I think there are actual questions here that don't have obvious answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at compute scaling and model improvement on that compute, we’re going to get there pretty fast. Both compute, architecture and cost matter, and those have been improving like crazy. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t expect GPT-4o to come out at half the price one year later, with real-time voice, image and text. There is zero sign of slowing, Nvidia keeps building beefier GPUs specialized in LLMs, the…
LLMs don't reason. Without reasoning, you don't have AGI. I can't wait until we're past the peak on the hype cycle because people's understanding of what these models can and can't do or how close we are to AGI isn't grounded in reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
not even imaginable what that tech will mean to the western neocolonial/imperial project
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…
There’s nothing specifically wrong with it, but there are “legit” companies and “kinda shady” ones, and when you start hanging out with a bad crowd…
Sad to see.
I feel like it really completes the fall from grace for OpenAI.
In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. Either the risk-mitigator 'falls in line' after repeatedly seeing their increasingly strident exhortat…
Seems like potential extinction event level fears might justify some drama.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 actua…
Have you actually talked to any AI safety people? They despise the DEI-flavored AI ethics "make sure it generates enough black people" stuff just as much as you do, and I think you're lumping the two of them together just based on your own dislike, without checking whether that's actually reflective of the reality on the ground.
I raised both because I see them going down very similar paths. DEI conceptually is a really important idea and could lead to really important change or course correction. As implemented today though, it seems to most often be implemented as a much more surface level program that sure feels more like PR or legal protection than anything else.
With AI safety, based on those in the industry I have spoken with, there's a very real risk the same happens. AI safety, again as I've seen implemented and what I've heard from people working in the field, is much more concerned with minor risks and has given up on concerns like the alignment problem. AI safety isn't concerned with moral or ethical questions of what happens as the technology progresses.
I'm not just talking about job loss concerns. Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have? Can it be turned off? Can it commit crimes or be punished? Does it have rights? No one in AI safety is realistically considering whether these systems should be on the public internet at all, unless there are drastically more powerful systems kept under wraps due to these risks. No one is seriously asking about risks to privacy, I'm sure some in the field share those worries but they are the outlier and don't seem to be given the ability to meaningfully move the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that vein, I'd say that most of the LLM research was done at Google. OpenAI productized faster.
Confused here, is your argument here that OpenAI is not responsible for any innovation when it comes to LLM tech today? I’m curious about why you so strongly want to believe that? Nobody knew that scaling transformer architecture would lead to the emergent intelligence we see today. Among other things, OpenAI did R&D for years on that. Also the only situation where this could true is if Google knew that LLMs could le…
It seems that Google really didn't know what to do with the tech, and hadn't figured out a way to control it (OpenAI's RLHF - critical for ChatGPT's success). It's a bit ironic that DeepMind were doing so much with RL, but Google Brain being separate at the time apparently were not consulting with them or tapping into their expertise.