111–120 of 178 posts
Just like this tool; you can make a auto research bot, or automated spammer.
Even in that worst case: Remember that there were already bad human beings. This is why we created laws, intelligence agencies, militaries and police systems. And security practices for websites, such as bot protection systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The discussion needs to go beyond the model. We need to talk about the training set for GPT and the process around RLHF.
Yes, the training data comes from people, and people are corrupt, illogical, random, emotional, unmotivated, take shortcuts, cheat, lie, steal, invent new things, and lead boring lives as well as not so boring lives. Expect the same behaviors to be emulated by a LLM. Garbage in = garbage out is still true with AI.
RLHF is almost the worst thing you can do to a model if your goal is safety. Better to have a model that looks evil if has evil inside, than a model that looks nice and friendly but still has the capability for evil underneath the surface. I’ve met people like the latter and they are the most dangerous kinds of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never fails that when a techbro has been told LLMs aren't what they think they fall back to a field they certainly have more authority on: The human brain/intelligence.
The issue here is that the "LLMs have intelligence" side of the argument can lay out a simple mainstream conception of intelligence (general problem solving) and explain directly how LLMs meet this definition. The other side of the argument, at least here in this thread, seems to be an empty insult or two and... Nothing else? Again, just say what you think intelligence is and why you think LLMs don't have it. If you…
This fantasy land you live in where people who have no formal training in the matter are making this high brow elegant reasoned argument doesn't exist and the reason you think the "other side of the argument" is just being insulting is because the burden of proof is not on us.
It doesn't help that half the time you guys post you directly contradict the main researcher's own assertions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what expert? And who are you exactly to state that this is wrong, that boldly? Are you an expert? How many neuroscience and psychology papers have you read? Do you have any children? Have you trained any LLMs? Have you worked with reinforcement learning? Or how many computer science papers have you read during last two decades?
Lets assume for a moment that I haven't read any papers in those fields, that I don't have any childrens, that I haven't trained any LLMs or worked in "reinforcement learning", or even read any computer science papers in the last 20 years (the answer to 90% of that is yes): I don't have to be an expert in physics to know that pastors can't levitate, regardless of what they claim. You're mad that I'm calling you out,…
If you haven’t done the above, I’d suggest doing it. It’s fun and gives a good perspective :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two big concerns: 1. GPT-8 or something is able to do 70% of people’s jobs. It can write software, drive cars, design industrial processes, build robots and manufacture anything we can imagine. This is a great thing in the long term, but in the short term society is designed where you need to work in order to have food to eat. I expect a period of rioting, poverty, and general instability. All we need for t…
I actually don’t think that ASI, if/when created by humans, will be very dangerous for humans. Humanity so far is stuck in an unfashionable location, on a tiny planet, on the outskirts of the median sized galaxy. There is very little reason for ASI, if created, to go after using up the atoms of a tiny planet (or a tiny star) on which it had originated. I’d fully expect it to go with the Carl Sagan and try to preserve…
A couple reasons why it might kill all of us before leaving the planet:
- The AI might be worried if it leaves us alone, we'll build another ASI which competes with it for galactic resources.
- If the ASI doesn't regard us at all, why not use all the atoms on Earth / in the sun before venturing forth?
In your comment you're ascribing a specific desire to the ASI: You claim it would try to "preserve that bright blue dot". Thats what a human would do, but why would we assume an arbitrary AI would have that goal? That seems naive to me. And especially naive given the fate of our species and our planet depends on being right about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like what expert? And who are you exactly to state that this is wrong, that boldly? Are you an expert? How many neuroscience and psychology papers have you read? Do you have any children? Have you trained any LLMs? Have you worked with reinforcement learning? Or how many computer science papers have you read during last two decades?
Lets assume for a moment that I haven't read any papers in those fields, that I don't have any childrens, that I haven't trained any LLMs or worked in "reinforcement learning", or even read any computer science papers in the last 20 years (the answer to 90% of that is yes): I don't have to be an expert in physics to know that pastors can't levitate, regardless of what they claim. You're mad that I'm calling you out,…
....what? You're saying to assume you know nothing about a field but to assume your claim is correct? You said to "talk to an expert" - who should I talk to? What should I read about here? If there's something I'm missing I want to correct it, I simply can't say "well this random guy commented and said I'm wrong, better change my understanding of this topic."
> you gotta understand after the 200th time of seeing this unfounded sentiment bandied about I'm not phased.
All you've said is "I've disagreed with everyone on this topic, and while I have no information to offer other than it's 'common sense'". That does nothing to either improve our understand, or further a conversation, it's literally just saying "you're wrong and I'm right" with no elaboration.
AI needn't even try to escape, the clueless humans will plug it into reallity by themselves. Given this totally expected attitude I hope that the base models will never be released to the general population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don’t think that ASI, if/when created by humans, will be very dangerous for humans. Humanity so far is stuck in an unfashionable location, on a tiny planet, on the outskirts of the median sized galaxy. There is very little reason for ASI, if created, to go after using up the atoms of a tiny planet (or a tiny star) on which it had originated. I’d fully expect it to go with the Carl Sagan and try to preserve…
You might consider it unlikely, but would you bet the future of our species on that? A couple reasons why it might kill all of us before leaving the planet: - The AI might be worried if it leaves us alone, we'll build another ASI which competes with it for galactic resources. - If the ASI doesn't regard us at all, why not use all the atoms on Earth / in the sun before venturing forth? In your comment you're ascribing…
Oh, sorry, no. There was an accident and it got destroyed.
What accident? Oh, I see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But where is the imminent danger? It is still limited in many ways. For example, it can be turned off or unplugged. Is it because CAPTCHAs won’t work anymore? That sounds like a problem for sites like Twitter that have bot problems. Is it because it may replace people’s jobs? That comes with every technological step forward and there’s always alarmist ludditism to accompany it. Is it because bad people will use it to…
There are two big concerns: 1. GPT-8 or something is able to do 70% of people’s jobs. It can write software, drive cars, design industrial processes, build robots and manufacture anything we can imagine. This is a great thing in the long term, but in the short term society is designed where you need to work in order to have food to eat. I expect a period of rioting, poverty, and general instability. All we need for t…
I've been using GPT-4 extensively for programming and its consistent failures at novel tasks have kind of left me less excited.