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

The Future of AI

lucijagregov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#101

Post by Lerc »

pixl97 wrote: post #70
Lerc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal I don't believe this to be a trait of any AI model, the model just does the right thing or the wrong thing. The ruthless maximising of a particular trait is something that happens during training. It does not follow that a model that is trained to reason will nedsesarily implement this ruthless seeking behaviour itself.

No lineage of AI models will be created that cannot achieve goals, they will be outcompeted by models that can.

Perhaps, but there is a difference in a reasoning system deciding on the best way to achieve the goal.

To get the predicted disastrous effects you need to be doing function optimisation without regard to the meaning of the function parameters. Yes, models can still game the system at inference time, but in much the same way as a human might game the system, it requires awareness that you are going against the intent of some rule.

Re: The Future of AI

#102

Post by benlivengood »

Animats wrote: post #85

We have unaligned AIs now. They're called corporations. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” - Milton Friedman, 1970.[1] That article, in the New York Times, established "greed is good…

In a sense AIs are extensions of the corporations. Very few large models have been trained outside of a corporate context, and their intended uses are still pretty aligned to corporate interests.

Everyone talks about workers losing jobs to AIs and Jack Dorsey lays off a bunch of people in the interests of the corporation, but an ideal corporation would not have a human CEO or board; they embezzle or get old or need to take a vacation or sleep at night.

It should be crystal clear to human leaders that their positions are on the chopping block along with blue and white collar work. For some reason they think that individually they will be more powerful than the economic forces driving current layoffs. AGI will not be confused about that.

Re: The Future of AI

#103

Post by IanCal »

4b11b4 wrote: post #45
jwpapi wrote: post #16

I don’t see any other outcome anymore to be honest, after seeing how humans use AI and how AI works and how providers tune their models. To me it’s given: - AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal - Providers tune ruthlessness to get stronger AIs versus the competitor - Humans can’t evaluate all consequences of the seeds they’ve planted. Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point. C…

AI isn't ruthless, that doesn't even make sense. It's a mathematical model, if it's optimizing for the wrong thing then that's strictly the fault of the people who chose what to optimize for

Blind optimisers without human qualities like ethics are pretty much the perfect example of what ruthless means.

Re: The Future of AI

#104

Post by [deleted] »

re-thc wrote: post #58
seanhunter wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s complete nonsense. The universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth has always been earth-shaped. We can think it’s flat, spherical, “turnip-shaped”[1] but the universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth doesn’t change shape based on our perception. [1] Yes some people think this for some reason I can’t fathom

> The earth has always been earth-shaped. And you never needed more than 640KB of RAM [1] right? Your "statement" is based on your knowledge today. You'd be burned for witchcraft back in the days for saying the earth was not flat. > but the universe doesn’t care what we think Assuming you know what the universe is. Your theory is based on your limited today knowledge. Someone sometime in the future could say somethin…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of AI

#105

Post by dtj1123 »

dsf2g wrote: post #89
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense that would assume that your average person has any concept of the relative statistics and has a sense of making decisions based on statistics People make decisions based on what other people around them are doing this is well known in safety engineering in architecture and civil engineering which is why you have standards for egress doors because left of their own devices humans will follow crowds to their o…

One does not need to know of relative statistics to know that a) you dont see planes randomly dropping out of the sky on a regular basis b) people enjoy flying to hot destinations and are willing to accept the small chance the flight may not be risk-free - people are aware of this when they experience some level of turbulence when flying. Finally, Ive seen plenty of your posts on here. You write with a particular ton…

Attacking the person rather than their argument only serves to make your argument look weaker.

Re: The Future of AI

#107

Post by RagnarD »

"This AI child knows about the world more than we do since it has been trained on the whole internet, but it doesn’t have millions of years of evolution, genes, or a nervous system to back up its morality and empathy. This means we need to install morality in AI from scratch. But how do we install something in a software system that we can’t even define ourselves?"

Two things jump out to me. First, there's a vast amount of information about morality in that internet-scale data dump. It's not some mystical thing orthogonal to knowledge, which ties directly into the second thing: maybe the author can't define it, but many others can and do, especially philosophers, though YMMV given which philosophy and philosopher.

viz: "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."

There are different systems of ethics, and those themselves can be reasoned about. We should want one that values rational human life. And among that vast data dump, there's no doubt that those ethical ideas have been extensively written about - so it can be used as a reference point to actively emphasize and select the ideas.

Re: The Future of AI

#108

Post by simondotau »

kmijyiyxfbklao wrote: post #63
simondotau wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better version of this principle is John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance". In this "original position", their position behind the "veil of ignorance" prevents everyone from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender, and (crucially in Rawls's formulation) their or anyone else's ideas of how to lead a good life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

This is as useful as doing physics with spherical cows.

Elaborate

Re: The Future of AI

#109

Post by leonvoss »

Animats wrote: post #85

We have unaligned AIs now. They're called corporations. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” - Milton Friedman, 1970.[1] That article, in the New York Times, established "greed is good…

from my POV, other alleged humans are p zombies and might as well be unaligned AIs. The "united states" giving me a list of commands and an AI king doing the same is no different to me phenomenologically

Re: The Future of AI

#110

Post by whattheheckheck »

benlivengood wrote: post #102
Animats wrote: post #85

We have unaligned AIs now. They're called corporations. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” - Milton Friedman, 1970.[1] That article, in the New York Times, established "greed is good…

In a sense AIs are extensions of the corporations. Very few large models have been trained outside of a corporate context, and their intended uses are still pretty aligned to corporate interests. Everyone talks about workers losing jobs to AIs and Jack Dorsey lays off a bunch of people in the interests of the corporation, but an ideal corporation would not have a human CEO or board; they embezzle or get old or need t…

Do you think its possible to have an all knowing Ai that if there was only 1, and everyone Brian dumped every night into it and the training loop would consider every stakeholder, it could better process it to formulate policies favorable to everyone?
Post reply on HN