131–140 of 803 posts
Same funding as OpenAI when they started, but SSI explicitly declared their intention not to release a single product until superintelligence is reached. Closest thing we have to a Manhattan Project in the modern era?
> Closest thing we have to a Manhattan Project in the modern era? Minus the urgency, scientific process, well-defined goals, target dates, public ownership, accountability...
I don't understand how "safe" AI can raise that much money. If anything, they will have to spend double the time on red-teaming before releasing anything commercially. "Unsafe" AI seems much more profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is significant possibility that true AI (what Ilia calls superintelligence) is impossible to build using neural networks What evidence can you provide to back up the statement of this "significant possibility"? Human brains use neural networks...
The neural networks in human brains are very different from artificial neural networks though. In particular, they seem to learn in a very different way than backprop. But there is no reason the company can't come up with a different paradigm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 1999 all over again.
Agreed, the AI bubble is very, very real. Not that LLMs are all hype, they’re certainly impressive with useful applications, but AI companies are getting insane valuations with zero proof that they’re viable businesses.
“…a straight shot to safe superintelligence and in particular to spend a couple of years doing R&D on our product before bringing it to market," Gross said in an interview.” A couple years ??
well since it's no longer ok to just suck up anyone's data and train your AI, it will be a new challenge for them to avoid that pitfall. I can imagine it will take some time...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is significant possibility that true AI (what Ilia calls superintelligence) is impossible to build using neural networks What evidence can you provide to back up the statement of this "significant possibility"? Human brains use neural networks...
There are two possibilities. 1. Either you are correct and the neural networks humans have are exactly the same or very similar to the programs in the LLMs. Then it will be relatively easy to verify this - just scale one LLN to the human brain neuron count and supposedly it will acquire consciousness and start rapidly learning and creating on its own without prompts. 2. Or what we call neural networks in the computer…
If you wanted to reduce it down, I would say there are two possibilities:
1. Our understanding of Neurel Nets is currently sufficient to recreate intelligence, consciousness, or what have you
2. We’re lacking some understanding critical to intelligence/conciousness.
Given that with a mediocre math education and a week you could pretty completely understand all of the math that goes into these neurel nets, I really hope there’s some understand we don’t yet have
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is significant possibility that true AI (what Ilia calls superintelligence) is impossible to build using neural networks What evidence can you provide to back up the statement of this "significant possibility"? Human brains use neural networks...
Neural networks in machine learning bear only a surface level similarity to human brain structure.
“…a straight shot to safe superintelligence and in particular to spend a couple of years doing R&D on our product before bringing it to market," Gross said in an interview.” A couple years ??
Safe superintelligence is a misnomer. If it’s intelligent, it knows what must be done. If it can’t, it’s not super or intelligent.
I don't see how this argument makes any sense. Imagine that you have a sentient super intelligent computer, but it's completely airgapped and cut off from the rest of the world. As long as it stays that way it's both safe and super intelligent, no?
I don't understand how "safe" AI can raise that much money. If anything, they will have to spend double the time on red-teaming before releasing anything commercially. "Unsafe" AI seems much more profitable.
Related to this, DAO's (decentralized autonomous organizations which do not have human shareholders) are intrinsically dangerous, because they can benefit their fiduciary duty even if it involves causing all humans to die. E.g., if the machine faction in The Matrix were to exist within the framework of US laws, it would probably be a DAO.