11–20 of 47 posts
People are going to be developing these no matter what. Whether it wipes us out or not is just up to fate really.
We can constrain their use, as with nuclear materials.
People are going to be developing these no matter what. Whether it wipes us out or not is just up to fate really.
We can constrain their use, as with nuclear materials.
People are going to be developing these no matter what. Whether it wipes us out or not is just up to fate really.
Unless the first one is so advanced no other can challenge it, that is.
create code(user request);
execute();
Is this not possible with tool use alone, so long as the agent has access to a tool that can execute arbitrary code?
Imagine if the A-bomb was being openly developed. What title would have contributed more to funding and research, "The A-bomb (is terribly powerful and) should not be developed" or "The A-bomb will never work"? Except the A-bomb did work and in a surprisingly short time, while autonomous AGI is still a conjecture.
I really enjoy Margaret Mitchell‘s podcast (she is the first author on the paper), and perhaps I missed something important in the paper, but: Shouldn’t we treat separately autonomous agent we write ourselves, or purchase to run on our own computers, on our own data and that use public APIs for data? If Margaret is reading this thread, I am curious what her opinion is. For autonomous agents controlled by corporations…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can constrain their use, as with nuclear materials.
No not really. There's no power in the world that can restrain this in it's current form even mildly much less absolutly. Why do you think that would be even slightly possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can constrain their use, as with nuclear materials.
At some point in the probably near future it will be much simpler to create an autonomous AI agent than a nuclear bomb.