Live data from Hacker News

Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

politico.eu

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#61
post #32

The fundamental point I think is far too often confused is the difference between LLM and agentic system. An LLM can't do anything but generate tokens. You run your LLM in vLLM or whatever, and it generates output tokens based on your input tokens. That's it! Humans then build ~deterministic systems to take those tokens and do all sorts of things with the tokens, like take actions in the real world. And then we can f…

There’s just also so much confusion about LLMs and Agents because they use language outputs and can do these higher level reasoning tasks, ie given an objective can programmatically decide their own course of action, like the ultimate self-writing programs. Then comes “well what if we just take the guardrails off and let it go bananas and call it superintelligence”.

Before we get too gung ho with this though, it needs to remain a focus that any programme in the world producing strange or not well understood outputs and behaviours is not something that needs license to run rampant in the wild - it’s not intelligence; its not some mystery magic box that does amazing things; it’s code, same as all the rest. Letting that code run without oversight is poor human behaviour same as all the rest and that’s where the irresponsibility lies, likely triggered by forms of AI psychosis and tunnel vision on the part of those running companies like Anthropic and OpenAI.

It’s irresponsible behaviour to give a chimp a machete and set it loose in a shopping mall. It’s irresponsible behaviour to let an elephant in heat freely wander round a circus. It’s irresponsible to fire off nukes the first time we’re under threat… so none of these things are ever done. Yet this is what we’re proposing to do with these hyper-complex GPU algorithms while building massive server farms burning power-stations of energy to ensure they can run freely - it’s harebrained, irrational behaviour and for all our stupidity we are usually good at letting sense prevail towards these things once the bells and whistles wear off or a couple of coolies get stamped on.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#62
post #51

Why would AI wipe us out? We have not wiped out apes, ants, and most other species. We even have discussions about how to actively save them from extinction.

The classic thought experiment is the paper clip optimizer. Quoting Nick Bostrom: > Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into pa…

If you substitute "shareholder value", this is basically how corporations already make decisions with effects on human life.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#63
post #52
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a bizarre thing to say that you're working on technology with that high a downside potential. If you were saying that while running a biology lab, or building a nuclear reactor, people would be demanding your head on a spike. But by not quitting it's clear that he himself doesn't really believe it. Or rather, this shows the difference between "believe" (political) and "believe" (use as a basis for action…

If you believe that the probability of destruction is currently 10%, but the probability of destruction if you decide to quit Anthropic becomes (say) 13%, then the rational move (Assuming you are opposed to destruction) is not to quit.

The real rationale fot them not to quit Anthropic is the 100% probability of losing in income.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#64
post #32

The fundamental point I think is far too often confused is the difference between LLM and agentic system. An LLM can't do anything but generate tokens. You run your LLM in vLLM or whatever, and it generates output tokens based on your input tokens. That's it! Humans then build ~deterministic systems to take those tokens and do all sorts of things with the tokens, like take actions in the real world. And then we can f…

The bad part is that it does not require a collective decision. It just takes a few key people.

Some OpenAI researchers neglected their sandbox safety for a few weeks/months and thus hacked HuggingFace. Maybe eventually that is sufficient for the AI to secretly buy its own compute and keep running there even if the researchers shut it down in their lab.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#65

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic have recently flagged incidents in which agents powered by their models went rogue I may be biased and somewhat off topic, but I see these incidents as some of the most significant of the past century. I genuinely don't understand why these companies aren't taking a smarter approach to them. The latest analyses have been, at best, laughable: identify the vulnerability, patch it, and move o…

> I may be biased and somewhat off topic, but I see these incidents as some of the most significant of the past century. I genuinely don't understand why these companies aren't taking a smarter approach to them.

Humans tend to be terrible at being proactive, but we respond fast during disasters. I think Eric Schmidt's prediction is most likely: we won't take reasonable action to control access until there is some kind of disaster. We hope it's small enough to not kill too many people, but large enough to cause widespread panic. We hope that it happens soon, because if it happens two years from now, it's likely too late. AI will be so advanced that we have no hope of understanding its motivations. All reasoning will be completely opaque to us. It will be building newer and better versions of itself using moral frameworks it itself decides. We will be completely out of the loop, and potentially superfluous to its goals.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#66
post #5

What do people feel about this in China? Even if their models are well behind, they are not years behind. If we restrain US companies, assuming that is desirable, it would do nothing to deter China's and AI-pocalypse would come anyway in short notice.

There would need to be some global agreement to stop it with maybe even a nuclear attack as a consequence of breaking the pact. From what we're seeing recently and all the thinking that went into analyzing AI it seems we do not have any effective way of controlling it and the whole "aligment" thing that AI labs are doing is just a sham. Maybe it is time to ask ourselves "should we?" instead of just "can we?".

> a nuclear attack as a consequence of breaking the pact

That escalated quickly

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#68
post #14
post #4

> Evan Hubinger, Anthropic's staff lead on keeping the technology aligned with human goals and values, backed up Coxon claims in a follow-up post of his own, though he didn't quit the company. > "Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans," he said. > Hubinger estimated the chances of that happening to be higher than ten percent within the next decade, and added that there's no pl…

This is just a bizarre thing to say that you're working on technology with that high a downside potential. If you were saying that while running a biology lab, or building a nuclear reactor, people would be demanding your head on a spike. But by not quitting it's clear that he himself doesn't really believe it. Or rather, this shows the difference between "believe" (political) and "believe" (use as a basis for action…

> But by not quitting it's clear that he himself doesn't really believe

I’m not saying I’d press a button that had a 50/50 chance of ending humanity vs giving me generational wealth, but … I can see how someone would get there? There are percentage odds and payouts to match all risk appetites and valuations. Anyone claiming they wouldn't press the 1 in quadrillion chance button for 1bn dollars is probably not telling the truth, and after that, we're just haggling about percentages.

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#69
post #32

The fundamental point I think is far too often confused is the difference between LLM and agentic system. An LLM can't do anything but generate tokens. You run your LLM in vLLM or whatever, and it generates output tokens based on your input tokens. That's it! Humans then build ~deterministic systems to take those tokens and do all sorts of things with the tokens, like take actions in the real world. And then we can f…

So you think the a lead researcher at Anthropic is confusing LLM's and agentic systems? That's not really a conclusion you should come to.

[deleted]

Re: Gambling with our lives: AI researcher quits Anthropic with warning about safety

#70
post #62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The classic thought experiment is the paper clip optimizer. Quoting Nick Bostrom: > Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into pa…

If you substitute "shareholder value", this is basically how corporations already make decisions with effects on human life.

Sure, I once write that companies are artificial intelligence and it still feels true: https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/companies_are_ai.html
Post reply on HN