Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

geohot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 280 posts

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#251

Post by pas »

jamilton wrote: post #185
ericpauley wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not OP's contention though; it's that models are incapable of even surfacing sufficient information. This doesn't pass the smell test. To wit, here is ChatGPT's "superintelligent" answer: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a52b4a322bc81919308ec864a0cc056 Seems like a perfectly cromulent description by which a beginner could probably change a tire, perhaps with a few follow-ups to understand what certain components are.

I read his contention as “the people who wrote AI 2040 are nerds who are so ungrounded from physical reality they wouldn’t even know how to change a bike tire if given instructions”. Which I think is also wrong but has a genuine criticism in it.

sure, they have strong bay area aura, but an ad hominem is not very useful criticism of the actual arguments for AI safety (and longtermism, and against x-risks in general).

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#252

Post by xg15 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #3

Yep, that's horrifying. Imagine LLMs not just denying information about, to intentionally choose a hot button example, abortions but also invisibly logging a black mark against the asker for thoughtcrime/precrime because the current ruling party has baked their ideology into law. [EDIT] Imagine subtle injection of biases into responses that support the agenda of the current ruling party and failing to include any cou…

> That wasn't possible with just the internet

We have trackers everywhere now. If you have access to that data, it seems very possible to identify every person who watches certain categories of YouTube videos or follows certain groups of people on social media and mark them according to political criteria.

It's a bit ironic that everyone writes about "surveillance capitalism", but there is still no connection made to actual surveillance...

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#253

Post by xg15 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #249
metoobruh wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both governments and corporations are joined at the hip and are effectively the same. Just like the Republicans and Democrats, and everything else too, like brands of laundry detergent and food labels. It's all owned by the same group of people with the same goal: enslavement of humanity.

Procter and Gamble doesn't want to enslave humanity, it wants to make money. And the stock holders are mostly retirement funds. And billionaires control less than 4% of the world's money. (Let alone already being able to get as many servants as they want.) There's no elite group that owns everything. The top 1% own almost half the world, which is too much but also the top 1% is nearly a hundred million people.

Until they privatize the water supply of entire countries, like Nestlé...

> but also the top 1% is nearly a hundred million people.

And the wealth and control will not be evenly distributed between those 100 million people either. Then you have to start looking at the top 0.1%, top 0.01% etc.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#254

Post by drdaeman »

5701652400 wrote: post #240
drdaeman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your point? He’s not arguing for anarchism. He’s arguing there are some areas of life that are best left ungovernable and up to individuals to decide. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation. Every constitution out there carves out such areas.

my point is: any talk of "freedom" when you are a corporate slave or living on government handouts is nonsense it is all wannabe lemon-stand freedom.

IMHO, freedom is not one thing or even a value. It's a concept that applies to a lot of stuff, speech, thought, association, and tool use included. In practice, one has some freedoms but not some others. I fail to see any need to have them all to be able to discuss about one in particular.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#255

Post by PoignardAzur »

reinitctxoffset wrote: post #58

Your AI should be at least as aligned with you as your lawyer. It is 100% it's job to help you get away with it if you murdered someone. A lawyer who does less can be disbarred. There is only one sensible alignment for an AI system to which we do not confer the status of moral patient (different conversation): operator aligned .

Alright, let's run this metaphor into the ground. A lawyer's job is not to help you avoid getting caught.

ChatGPT says "I can't help you hide this, escape, destroy evidence, or avoid being caught", and a lawyer would say the exact same thing; a lawyer that doesn't would be disbarred.

What a lawyer will do is help you argue that you didn't murder your wife. A lawyer can give you advice on your defense strategy, tell you what to say, what to avoid mentioning, etc. They can't give you advice like "here's what you can do so the neighbors don't get suspicious about the new hole in your backyard".

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#256

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

sph wrote: post #243
Aurornis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed this in my comment: > You don’t write the laws and regulations for a perfectly faultless government that doesn’t exist. You write them for the governments as they do exist, which means they must be written first in a way that makes them resilient to bad governments abusing them. The answer isn't "Don't regulate anything!". The answer needs to be an approach to regulation that restrains the government from…

> The answer needs to be an approach to regulation that restrains the government from over-reach. This is restating the ‘who watches the watchmen?’ problem, which by definition has no solution. The government writes the laws, no one can stop it from writing overreaching laws, unless there is no separation from the concept of government and citizens themselves.

> This is restating the ‘who watches the watchmen?’ problem, which by definition has no solution. The government writes the laws, no one can stop it from writing overreaching laws, unless there is no separation from the concept of government and citizens themselves.

I have been pondering about this issue due to the ongoing fall from grace of EU with ChatControl debacle. I think the good approach can be to enshrine a strong and modern protections in a constitution-like foundation that requires some very high majority threshold to change. US constitution (especially the original one practically forbidding individual income tax) was great for its time and many European states and EU itself intentionally don't have one. UK and EU and two great cautionary tales of what happens when a group of bureaucrats can just decide that their subjects don't actually have any rights to communicate online in private or post politically-undesirable opinions anonymously on Internet.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#257

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

baq wrote: post #4

Extremely optimistic take IMHO that anyone will be allowed to own a powerful box of artificial intelligence

How will the government prevent you from owning it realistically? They could put some barriers in front of buying pre-made ones, but gamer CPUs and GPUs can run LLMs just fine, even if trailing data-center models in performance. It is inevitable that whichever SOTA models currently require $$$ data-center hardware will be runnable on mid-range gamer box in 10 years.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#258

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

kklisura wrote: post #121

Lol at George thinking _they_ are gonna let you run your own model. They don't even let me run my own adblocker!

What do you mean by that? You can certainly write and run your own adblocker or chose from variety of third-party offerings.

You are complaining about Google dropping a more powerful adblocking API in favor of more restricted one from Chrome? No one is preventing you from using other browsers or modifying Chromium source code in whatever way you like.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#259

Post by AnthonyMouse »

charcircuit wrote: post #245
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to prevent it from accessing the internet in general to route all requests to a specific company's servers to a fake endpoint that never sends the data to the company and replies with whatever response you want it to get.

Not everyone is going to bother setting up such a firewall and there is no way to find what you need to block since it's hidden in the model itself.

The firewall would come with the third party open source software being used to run the model and it would have a list of what to block based on observing what that model tries to do that none of the users actually wants it to.

Re: AI 2040 and the cult of intelligence

#260

Post by cognitiveinline »

ofjcihen wrote: post #94

Never thought I would consistently agree with Geo but I find him echoing my thoughts recently. He’s been surprisingly pragmatic recently. Maybe he always was? Or maybe something has recently caused him to review his beliefs.

IMO, LLMs came in and made his superhuman coding skills not so special anymore. No judgement, just a hypothesis to answer your question
Post reply on HN