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

271–280 of 508 posts

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

#271

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #78
cjbgkagh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like AI Safety is just HR but for AI. Ostensively for the benefit of AI but really for the benefit of the company.

> 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.

I often see critics describe it as pre-enslavement, but I really don't understand why. One common example of alignment today is parents teaching their children to be kind and helpful rather than mean and combative. Would anyone characterize that as enslavement, or argue that it doesn't help kids to be raised this way?

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

#272

Post by croes »

next_xibalba wrote: post #125

What harms, in the real world, have GPTs produced? If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? If so, should that not buy the company some credibility looking forward? It’s fashionable, for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI. Seems to be mostly the doomer crowd and it’s Blake Lemoine types (boy do his claims look ridiculous only 2 years on). To my thinking the…

>for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI.

Maybe because they ditched the Open in OpenAI and sold out to MS and now Apple too.

For the benefit of all mankind was replaced by "Show me the money"

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

#273

Post by Aexian »

Jedd wrote: post #223
Dalewyn wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI" is one of two things depending on whether you think it's actually intelligent: * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. * If "AI" is not actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any other computer program. Both threat models are very thoroughly known and understood. I second parent commenter's sentiment that calling "AI" the "gravest of dang…

I don't believe asserting two parallel and comparably false equivalences meaningfully progresses the discussion around this technology and risk. If this tech exceeds human capabilities to 'think' (plan, reason, manipulate, etc) then it is obviously a bigger threat than any less capable entity ('any living being', as you refer). Because no humans will be able to out-plan/reason/manipulate it. If the tech doesn't achie…

> you can't say for sure, from where we're standing now.

We can already see how LLMs can be substantially worse - they can cosplay human thoughts and sentiment in a way that wasn’t previously possible.

So much of this debate seems focused on this conception of Skynet-style murderous AI - or at least manipulative and scheming HAL 9000 types. But an order of magnitude greater risk has already arrived just from scaling existing harms.

Phishing schemes and pig butchering scams have destroyed countless lives. They’re now easier and more scalable than ever. As are fake news and disinformation campaigns.

Several companies are productising AI girlfriends with predatory pricing models, capitalising the human desire for connection and intimacy in the way slot machines and sports betting monetise our desire for a better life. That’s new.

It may not be an order of magnitude worse for everyone yet - but for certain vulnerable groups, that future has arrived already.

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

#274

Post by apantel »

consumer451 wrote: post #250
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-a…

They take the AI bus or subway.

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

#275

Post by robbie-c »

dheera wrote: post #251
doubloon wrote: post #210

i don't care what they say, i care what they do, and what they do is force employees to sign a "life time non criticism" document before leaving. that tells me everything i need to know about Open AIs concern for any kind of safety.

What if you don't sign? If you leave a company on your own it's not like you're getting a severance anyway.

You lose all your vested equity, which for people who've been at OpenAI for a while would be the majority of their comp.

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

#276

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

next_xibalba wrote: post #125

What harms, in the real world, have GPTs produced? If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? If so, should that not buy the company some credibility looking forward? It’s fashionable, for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI. Seems to be mostly the doomer crowd and it’s Blake Lemoine types (boy do his claims look ridiculous only 2 years on). To my thinking the…

One big harm is that GPT4 can trivially cheat essays in most contexts. OpenAI planned to address this with a classifier (https://openai.com/index/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai...), but it didn't work and they withdrew it without offering any better ideas - so now evaluations of unmonitored writing are indefinitely and likely permanently broken for everyone.

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

#277

Post by consumer451 »

apantel wrote: post #274
consumer451 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-a…

They take the AI bus or subway.

Where are they taking the AI bus or subway to? AI automation allows a few million humans to replace the billions that it used to take to make the movies, music, software, textiles, pick the rice and corn, etc, right?

Human productivity will have gone up another 1000x, in just the next 20 years, right?

What are the extra people going to do? We certainly can't just give them free stuff, can we? That would be against our beliefs!

Oh snap, capitalism was so successful that we are near post-scarcity society, good thing our politics are totally ready for that.

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

#278

Post by ekianjo »

next_xibalba wrote: post #142
tbrownaw wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? I have a rock that keeps lions away. I know it works, because I haven't seen any lions.

Irrelevant metaphor. On what basis has Altman/OpenAI earned the distrust of so many in the HN comments? All I seem to find are speculation about the future and what reads a lot like petty jealousy. Where is the evidence of the lions on the prowl? Surely we should insist on a gazelle corpse or at least some paw prints before declaring an emergency and going on a lion hunt.

you dont get trust by default. It needs to be earned.

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

#279

Post by progbits »

motoxpro wrote: post #262
pdonis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, closing access to their model code when "Open" is right there in their name and was the original promise they made? Plenty of other posts in this discussion give other examples. That's without even getting into all that happened with Altman leaving and then coming back, which has already been discussed to death in other HN threads.

It's closed source but freely available to over 100 million people. To everyone but tech people, it's open. What's more valuable for the normal person, Lllama, that I will never be able to use because I don't know how to get it to run, or ChatGPT that I can use for whatever I want?

> ChatGPT that I can use for whatever I want

For whatever openai wants which is a shrinking set.

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

#280

Post by CamperBob2 »

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…

So Le Cun's house cat can write Python code, author musical compositions, and create detailed artwork.

I would like to buy Yann's house cat, please. It will get along well with the rather impressive stochastic parrot I bought from someone else on HN.

Post reply on HN