Live data from Hacker News

Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

twitter.com

361–370 of 508 posts

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

#361
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test insight is that text is a sufficient medium to test for AGI. And this still holds true.

That has nothing to do with why turing proposed it; nor does it have anything to do with general intelligence. This is just pseudoscience. There's no scientific account of the capacities of a system with intelligence, no account of how these combine, no account of how communicative practices arise, etc. None. Any such attempt would immediately expose the "test" as ridiculous. General intelligence arises as skillful a…

> General intelligence arises as skillful adaptive control over one's environment, through sensory-motor concept aquistion, and so on.

This isn't a generally accepted definition or process.

And indeed it seems to preclude people like Stephen Hawkins who had little control over his environment (or to be pedantic, people who had similar conditions from birth).

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

#362

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…

And still, Yann LeCun (head of AI at Meta, renowned AI/ML researcher) is convinced that we are far from reaching AGI. He makes convincing arguments, especially around the fact that we are not able to expose models to the amount of redundant information that even a young kid is exposed to. I guess we'll see some shifting goals around "what is even AGI". You say the we'll have soon "models that most of us consider AGI…

The point from Yann LeCun I find interesting is the negative space argument where as training data / parameters increase, the "best" next tokens represent a smaller and smaller slice of the model. His contention is therefore more hallucinations, more places to get stuck on some less best next tokens, etc and interesting to think about this as the opposite of how scaling laws are typically presented. A lot of smart people stabbing around in the dark right now and only time (and gazillions in GPUs) will tell.

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

#364

I think the fear of AGI destroying humanity mostly stems from the suspicion that a logically thinking device would indeed come to the conclusion that we need to be exterminated.

I think it’s because we destroy ourselves and other animals, we’re afraid of ourselves.

If we made something like ourselves burn more capable we’d be terrified and in trouble.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't like climate change. "AI" is a successful marketing term for a loosely related collection of technologies that push the boundaries of what computation has hitherto been capable of. There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are and just how far they'll actually be able to push the boundaries of computation. Comparing skepticism about AI alarmism…

I didn’t say it was like climate change, I said it was like claiming climate change is not real . > There are very real disagreements between very real experts on just how dangerous these new technologies are …but they do not dispute that the technology is impactful. In fact, anyone who claims it is just “Text continuation”(quote) is being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately downplaying it. > Comparing skeptic…

[deleted]

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

#366
post #62

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…

Safety, the way you use it has nothing to do with the work being done by the alignment team. Aligned, in this context, simply means that a models output are aligned with our expectations... It follows instructions... does what it's told. A super intelligent model that refuses your instructions is no more useful than a dumb model that cannot understand them. The alignment team where part of the race to make more powerful models. Read openai's last paper if you want to understand it better from a technical perspective. https://openai.com/index/weak-to-strong-generalization/

Naturally you can frame this as a general safety thing, if you convince people that llms have embodied agency and might start breaking out of the system like a computer virus. But llms are text generators. They can do nothing physically, unless you allow them to and plug them in to something.

The real risk is that people don't understand this, and lots of people probably are willing to plug these models in to dangerous situations, with only the assurance from openai that they are safe. If you do not have access to the training data used, then you cannot possibly know what behaviour has been trained in to it, and how a model might behave. With the training data, you can have a much better understanding, and the only remaining uncertainty being the non-deterministic nature of the implementation. But at least that's an explainable stochastic process.

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

#367
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test has not been passed

Just the other day there was a double-blind study that showed a 50-50 success rate in guessing whether you were interacting with a person or GPT. That’s a turning test pass, no?

If you're referring to the study at

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40386571 ,

then it wasn't a canonical Turing test. The preprint accurately describes and analyzes their (indefensibly bad) experiment, but the popular press has mischaracterized it.

The canonical test gives the interrogator two witnesses, one human and one machine, and asks them to judge which witness is human. The interrogator knows that exactly one witness is human. In that test, a 50% chance of a right answer means the machine is indistinguishable from human. (Turing actually proposed a lower pass threshold, perhaps for statistical convenience.)

But that study gave the interrogator one witness, and asked them to judge whether it was human. The interrogator wasn't told anything about the prior probability that their witness was human. The probabilities that a real human is judged human and that GPT-4 is judged human sum to >100%, since nothing stops that since it's not a binary comparison. So 50% has no particular meaning. The result is effectively impossible to interpret, since it's a function both of the witness's performance and of whatever assumption the interrogator makes about the unspecified prior.

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

#368
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"?

Text continuation defines a task.

It does not limit the sophistication of the solution.

The difference between problems and solutions seems to trip up a lot of people.

—-

It gets even more nuanced. At its basic level all types of digital AI are “just” arithmetic, or “just” Boolean logic. But arithmetic’s and Boolean logic’s simplicity don’t limit what systems can be built with them, as they are Turing Complete.

Likewise, the training algorithm for deep learning models is “just” gradient descent (or a variation), it’s “just” a dumb optimizer.

But again, gradient descent places no limits on what a system with enough resources can learn.

The whole point of learning systems is the basic resources of the model are provided, and within those resource limits (parameters, computational speed and time) the “dumb” learning algorithm learns the patterns in the data. The data patterns define the complexity of the solution.

And the amount of information in a large collection of human correspondence includes patterns, meta patterns and abstractions for things like science, philosophy, psychology, law, art, on and on, that incidentally have a real bearing on sentence completion in that context. So a model will actually have to learn those things to perform its task well.

New Law of Algorithm Level Confusion:

Whenever someone says some learning system is “just” doing some simple task, they are confusing a simple task definition with a simple solution, or a simple learning algorithm with simple learned relationships.

In both cases, the simplicity of the former places no limits on the sophistication of the latter.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>”I don't see nuclear weapons as any worse than conventional weapons because ultimately people die.” If you believe this, I am genuinely curious as to what you would consider the “gravest of dangers” to be.

I think of threats that are unknown and/or can't be adequately defended against: * Asteroid impacts like Chicxulub. * The Sun eventually inflating into a red giant and eating Earth, though this assumes we're both still around and haven't become spaceborne en masse. * Pandemics such as The Black Death and, indeed, covid for a recent example. * Social, political, or commercial intrigue. * Cancer. "AI" is a known threat…

[dead]

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

#370
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That tweet thread confirms what I said, at least in a roundabout way. Per the next tweets: > Equity is part of negotiated compensation; this is shares (worth a lot of $$) that the employees already earned over their tenure at OpenAI. > Employees are not informed of this when they're offered compensation packages that are heavy on equity. That makes it sound like it's something that they agreed to when accepting their…

> I'm not sure of the structure of what they signed before and this article doesn't get into it, but I maintain that there is no legal mechanism to tell someone "sign this or I take away something you already received". There has to be more to the story than the way I've seen it presented so far. It's in that whole collection of tweets, but essentially the contract which you sign on joining says that if you leave and…

> It's in that whole collection of tweets, but essentially the contract which you sign on joining says that if you leave and you don't sign the exit paperwork then you lose your equity. You aren't told what is in the exit paperwork at this point.

Yeah, that sounds like the kind of shenanigans that I imagine happened (I didn't see it in the article and I may have missed it among the tweets).

This is the kind of thing you really should never agree to as an employee signing on, though I wouldn't be surprised if many never really knew about it. I also doubt it's enforceable.

> Whether or not this is legally enforceable, no idea, IANAL. It does sound like enough of a threat that most people would just sign though

I agree, although the amounts of money here are probably large enough that they should just have lawyers involved giving them advice.

Post reply on HN