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

401–410 of 508 posts

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

#401

Post by [deleted] »

bjackman wrote: post #397
emrehan wrote: post #391

Some facts: * This is a response to Jan’s claims: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494 * There’s nothing concrete on AI alignment in the response. * We don’t know when AI alignment could be developed. * AI ethics / AI bias are necessary, but different concerns than AI alignment. * We don’t know when existential-risk posing AI could be developed. * There’s some risk of human extinction due to development…

Can anyone summarise the claims? Twitter doesn't show threads for web users (at least if not logged in).

[deleted]

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

#402

Post by pas »

golol wrote: post #376
adastra22 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So why can't you replace 99% of callcenter calls (<5min) with AI right now?

you don't know which calls are going to be those trivial ones upfront.

that said, support is being replaced by nothing in a lot of places. (oh, sometimes there's an annoying chatbot.)

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

#403

Post by jeffreygoesto »

mofeien wrote: post #396
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ChatGPT-4 won't kill us, and probably neither will the next generation of models. But if we keep building more and more powerful AI systems, eventually we will reach a point where one will become an existential threat. Present dangers of AI include Fake News, impersonation through deepfakes, biases and discrimination in the models, job loss and economic instability, loss of human purpose through individuals becoming…

Reminds me of "now automated driving is only five years away" since 2008...

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

#405

Post by bitnasty »

mofeien wrote: post #396
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ChatGPT-4 won't kill us, and probably neither will the next generation of models. But if we keep building more and more powerful AI systems, eventually we will reach a point where one will become an existential threat. Present dangers of AI include Fake News, impersonation through deepfakes, biases and discrimination in the models, job loss and economic instability, loss of human purpose through individuals becoming…

You, like many others, miss the number one danger of AI—making people dumber and less capable of reason.

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

#406

Post by iudqnolq »

mofeien wrote: post #396
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

ChatGPT-4 won't kill us, and probably neither will the next generation of models. But if we keep building more and more powerful AI systems, eventually we will reach a point where one will become an existential threat. Present dangers of AI include Fake News, impersonation through deepfakes, biases and discrimination in the models, job loss and economic instability, loss of human purpose through individuals becoming…

If being able to write lots of convincing text could give you immense power why haven't any of the billions of humans that can already do that done so?

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

#407

Post by pas »

implements wrote: post #384
huppeldepup wrote: post #363

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.

“A large human population isn’t the best use of the Earth’s resources” would seem to be an obvious conclusion of a superior thinking entity with no compelling reason in prioritising us over its own interests (which might not be selfish eg it’s goal might be to discover the true nature of reality. But why exterminate humans? Why not create nature reserves for us and other life, for bioconservation and research? That’s…

the risk is that we know that there is a non-zero probability mass associated with "AGI doing whatever leading to premature human extinction"

and the less serious concerns we look at the bigger the chance (of course the severity is less, so calculating the impact is not trivial), but "non-runaway AGI used for antisocial purposes" is pretty likely.

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

#408

Post by sebzim4500 »

implements wrote: post #384
huppeldepup wrote: post #363

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.

“A large human population isn’t the best use of the Earth’s resources” would seem to be an obvious conclusion of a superior thinking entity with no compelling reason in prioritising us over its own interests (which might not be selfish eg it’s goal might be to discover the true nature of reality. But why exterminate humans? Why not create nature reserves for us and other life, for bioconservation and research? That’s…

>Why not create nature reserves for us and other life, for bioconservation and research? That’s been a feature of human societies going back thousands of years.

Generally only for things we find cute or pretty.

Plenty of "save the whales!", not much "save this strain of this bacteria before it goes extinct!".

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

#409

Post by staunton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #295
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…

“The technology they’re working on poses the gravest of dangers.” Or, rather, its been actively marketed by Altman as doing so, as part of his effort to buy influence with government to restrict competition. The simplest explanation for the conflict is that it doesn’t , and that OpenAI internally has allocated resources based on reality rather than it’s public propaganda, and the team whose internal turf was built ar…

> technology they’re working on poses the gravest of dangers.

> Or rather, its been actively marketed by Altman as doing so

Both can be true at the same time.

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

#410

Post by ben_w »

iudqnolq wrote: post #406
mofeien wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT-4 won't kill us, and probably neither will the next generation of models. But if we keep building more and more powerful AI systems, eventually we will reach a point where one will become an existential threat. Present dangers of AI include Fake News, impersonation through deepfakes, biases and discrimination in the models, job loss and economic instability, loss of human purpose through individuals becoming…

If being able to write lots of convincing text could give you immense power why haven't any of the billions of humans that can already do that done so?

The most competent at that, did so, and are immensely powerful. That's basically all of politics, and not only in a democracy.

You do have to be significantly above average to get there. Current generation LLMs are a bit above the human average, enough to be interesting, but probably not enough to be a personal Goebels for every would-be dictator.

Post reply on HN