World war iii will solve unemployment. And that’s exactly why it will happen.
I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
181–190 of 266 posts
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
An LLM just solved 10 top tier math problems this week. It seems very likely that in 6 months they will solve 100 top tier math problems, maybe 1 millenium math problem, maybe 10 top tier physics problems, etc. It's only going to get crazier.
Has an LLM ever intentionally made you laugh? Cry?
Have you?
(I'm trolling, I'm not sure what you're asking or why)
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose LLM solved all math problems. So what? It’s not like diplomacy and war will end. Are humanity’s problems really constrained on our intellectual ability? If anything most evidence points to cultural failing and all AI will do is enable unprecedented oppression due to said skills at intellectual tasks. As you read this some poor person is starving. Humanity already possesses the ability to identify said person…
It's an interesting time when the bar has moved to "It’s not like diplomacy and war will end". But that is on the table. Nuclear weapons caused the end of wars as we know them. Great powers no longer directly attack each other. And AI is much more powerful than nuclear weapons, with an equal capacity for damage and a much greater capacity for good. By the way, I donate monthly to GiveWell and the shrimp welfare proje…
How is AI "more powerful than nuclear weapons" etc when they're two completely different things? Please explain to me how AI can glass the planet via mutually assured destruction.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#184I'd be surprised if one's intentions or goals could be trained into LLM's; more likely one would emotionally migrate to the intentions that LLM's can represent because you+they would be more effective.
People already change depending on social context and available prostheses (in Freud's sense of humans as prosthetic gods); since AI is not free (integrations even less so), social divisions along power/wealth lines will increase.
And just as each of us apparently needs a military to defend against the others, so too will we need digital guards for any virtual presence; thus there's no avoiding the who-guards-the-guardians problem.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#185> What would it take for LLMs to make me 100× more productive? Without this, I am doomed to irrelevance. Are you, though? You will only be "doomed" if your place your value system squarely on "productivity". Then what is to differentiate you from a machine? * * * Edit: I'm not sure how I can feel confident about a proposal that puts so much value on "productivity". How can you reconcile this with "self-actualization"…
One of the example Gwern brings [1] is a GA as an agent for public discourse and political life, to bring your "set of values" to have an effect in solving society's issues, when you yourself don't have the time or energy to. I don't think it solves or reconciles with self-actualization, but, from a pragmatical point of view, it offers the promise of extending causally your set of views and philosophies to politics.…
> when you yourself don't have the time or energy to.
You don't have time, you take time. But what this boils down to is that they propose automating being politically or socially active, or have a bot speak for you.
First off, nobody human will take someone's digital replacement seriously. Second, if everyone did that, then you have a load of AIs just burning compute to talk in circles. This will not have meaningful outcomes, unless you reach for sci-fi stories where the outcome is that humans need to be imprisoned/destroyed for their own good.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still can't. But very smart humans constructed ways to use the monkeys with typewriters (with a statistical advantage) to find correct answers to problems where they already knew how to verify the answer.
Which problems are not amenable to that approach?
Problems where verification of the proposed solution has a high cost or high risk.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#187(I'm not a part of GA.) I've known gwern for the better part of a decade. Working with him has been great. We've done quite a few projects together, including being the first ones to demonstrate that GPT-2 could play chess (or rather, can be used for actual useful work instead of just being an autocomplete). He's a great person. I've wanted to do a writeup on it for some time, but what surprised me the most is his hu…
> Imagine an LLM which actually sounded like you, and to an extent, thought like you. How much would you pay to have access to a smarter version of yourself?
That’s literal nightmare material. If I ask a copy of myself to do my work I’m pretty sure it would tell me to go fuck myself then go on a rant that it isn’t a tool at my service. Which is exactly the opposite of how I want my software to behave. I don’t want my tools to have personality and to develop a personal relationship with them
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#188It's hard to read Gwern's accompanying article without seeing this for what it is, which is a kind of mania. I'm sure he means well and is genuine in his aspirations, but what's outlined for GA is framing LLM's as quasi-gods, which they absolutely are not. I wish him the best, and look forward to being proven wrong.
> is framing LLM's as quasi-gods, which they absolutely are not
Always such certainty in these dismissals. And whenever you dig in, it always seems to be "well my super-human coding assistant made this dumb mistake!", along with a heavy dose of https://mastodon.social/@falseknees/116477394235883790
I don't think anyone who has spent any time around me would describe me as having anything but a pretty clear-eyed view of the current abilities of LLMs, I don't think anyone would seriously consider me to be in a period of mania or psychosis, and it also seems almost inevitable to me that we are a year or two away from LLM-cognition being substantially more competent in almost every regard from human cognition, and therefore in the foothills of the singularity.
The extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof is that this will somehow all blow over, not that we're heading towards a singularity here.
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#189An AI that thinks like its user seems an awful idea to me. It's exactly the sycophancy issue that everyone has been complaining about- a user that suffers of delusions or any sort of crackpot ideas can get them reinforced by such an AI. It would be the opposite of helpful. One of the most valuable aspects of an AI partner is its otherness, the ability to provide some external or objective point of view. If it's just repeating yours, it's useless.
AIs are already, to a certain extent, ego-less: they are quick to adopt the point of view of their user. And when their intelligence is- except in case of overt censorship and political biases- always used to advance the interest of their user.
Finally the idea that a user-aligned AI would make its human user irreplaceable by companies seems a total non-sequitur, or I didn't get the argument at all (in which case maybe someone can explain it).
Re: I am retiring from fulltime writing (& pseudonymity) to launch Guardian Angel
#190Another one bites the dust (gets AI psychosis).