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

241–250 of 508 posts

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

#241

Post by komali2 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #194
comp_throw7 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."

An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed. Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living…

Can you explain, with your worldview, why the nature of geopolitics turned abruptly and completely upon the invention and proliferation of nuclear bombs? What was it about the nuclear bomb that caused it to be the defining structure of the cold war?

Do you believe MAD can exist without nuclear bombs?

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

#242

Post by tbrownaw »

_heimdall wrote: post #229
Silphendio wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child porn is already heavily "regulated". Producing the stuff is illegal and AI service providers must take steps to prevent it.

This is a blind spot for me, do existing legal protections generally cover fake/generated content? To be clear, the context of this thread is extremely important. I don't know how far our existing laws might go to make sure ML generated child porn is illegal and I'd personally feel much more comfortable to know that ML generation isn't some kind of legal loophole.

Last I heard it varies by jurisdiction. Some only prohibit things that actually involve actual children, some ban based on subject matter even if it's say a cartoon drawing.

I assume that training separate models for separate jurisdictions would be rather expensive, so probably unlikely.

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

#243

Post by a_wild_dandan »

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…

Open source/science! If open models approach/maintain near-SotA capabilities, then there's hope for avoiding a Big Tech AI aristocracy. Currently, that means Meta releasing their 405B GPT-4 killer (and probably subsequent models).

We'll need community unity, to implement research results, test/harden models, create/aggregate/clean massive new datasets, figure out distributed training, lower hardware requirements, encourage experts to join the effort, praise companies who contribute to open source, etc.

You don't have to tell me that we'll fail. I know. But we have to try. It's the only way we'll have AI aligned to us, not a handful of techbros with savior complexes.

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

#245

Post by badestrand »

conception wrote: post #208
Terretta wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Text continuation poses "the greatest of dangers"?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/17/a... "...I also went to a panel in Palantir’s booth titled Civilian Harm Mitigation. It was led by two “privacy and civil liberties engineers” – a young man and woman who spoke exclusively in monotone. They also used countless euphemisms for bombing and death. The woman described how Palantir’s Gaia map tool lets users “nominate targets of interest” for “the…

That rather sounds like Palantir is dangerous and not OpenAI.

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

#246

Post by consumer451 »

deadbabe wrote: post #216
consumer451 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?

Universal basic income? The idea behind that was people would go on to pursue more creative or artistic jobs that don’t prioritize profit after being given a basic income to live off. Unfortunately it won’t work out that way: We see now that AI will mostly take over creative and artistic work and people will have no motivation to pursue art. The only jobs left for humans are hard physical labor and no one seems excit…

> Having a society of mostly idle people that cost you money doesn’t really sound like a great or sustainable idea, nor does there seem to be any benefit to society.

So what are we going to do with all of the excess humans once human productivity jumps one, two, or three more orders of magnitude?

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

#247

Post by consumer451 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #196
consumer451 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?

Massive inflation from the COVID shutdowns and stimulus checks happened.

Do you have any data to support this statement?

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

#248

Post by dheera »

Terretta wrote: post #128
tummler wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that these aren't standard-issue HR/legal issues. The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers. This is uncharted territory, not just for the tech sector, but period. Whether the recent public back-and-forth is just internal drama/politics spilling out, or there really is a lack of gravitas around the handling of these issues within the company-- neither is good. Others have s…

Text continuation poses "the greatest of dangers"?

If it's used to write code that runs on an ICBM without verification, yes.

If it is used to write the firmware that runs inside 1 million lithium battery BMS systems that causes them all to catch on fire after 65536 seconds of runtime due to an integer overflow and code crashing and a FET getting left in the on state, then yes.

I'm not an AI safety nut and don't think AI itself is a threat, but what is a threat is lazy humans using shitty AI to take over things that humans should be doing.

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

#249

Post by pilgrim0 »

It’s too late to talk about safety when your product is already free to use and actively employed to pollute the digital space with all sorts of fakery. And AGI? Please, how can they be so delusional to the point of believing they are on a path to achieve anything remotely resembling it? It’s so cringe. I feel like chance has put too much power and influence on the hands of a couple of immature adults. GPT is a state of the art search engine. Period. But they had to anthropomorphize it, and again with GPTo. There’s no genie in the lamp, get over it already.

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

#250

Post by consumer451 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #217
consumer451 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way that AI inference will become democratized is if the compute cost is lowered to the point where SOTA AI runs locally on RPI6, or a $200 Android device, or similar. Is that a real possibility?

You are working with a contradiction - you think AI will be hugely missed moactfull( but people will put no more effort into it than they put into watching TikTok. the correct price point is like price of a car. That’s the other recent invention that was important. That buys you a lot of compute. We already successfully run torrents and crypto very democratically, and they take more than £200 Second, you don’t need t…

> the correct price point is like price of a car.

>> By 2020, with 15% of 7.5 billion people projected to own an automobile [0]

15% in 2020, so let's be nice and assume 17% by 2024. Let's be super nice and assume an additional 10% can afford a car, but choose to not buy one for some reason. What happens to the other 73% of people? (5,475,000,000 human beings)

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-population-and-the...

Post reply on HN