131–140 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems very unclear if you could "instruct" true AGI to do something.
Maybe you assume that an AGI would be totally uncontrollable but in this highly speculative exercise I don't think you should assume your position is the only valid one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? Pursue the research and publish its results freely and in their entirety.
I don't think you answered 3pt14159's question. What if you publish the research and nobody who can do anything about it cares?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law No, I asked for specific examples. This is part of the handwaving I'm talking about. Can you give me something other than the maniacal paperclip optimizer?
YouTube video recommendations, which converge on recommending conspiracy theories and shocking videos to easily manipulated people, especially children. I am not worried about literal paperclip maximizers, but this may be the closest real thing to that parable. The hypothesis isn't that YouTube's recommender system didn't work -- it's that it worked too well at its assigned task of maximizing view time, and we humans…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and destroy the world if she makes a mistake How would the world be destroyed? Does an example work without handwaving about recursive self-improvement and an imperative to optimize extremely literally? Can you give me a play by play of how a newly developed strong AI eradicates the human species quickly and thoroughly without us having any time to react? EDIT: In summation, there have been several downvotes, but t…
> Can you give me a play by play of how a newly developed strong AI eradicates the human species quickly and thoroughly without us having any time to react? Terminator, The Matrix, 2001, I Robot, War Games,
Frankly, I don't want to even estimate the orders of magnitude of difficulty in seeing AGI come to fruition over ML, so I think you, I, and anybody else reading this has little to worry about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*She ---but yeah, as a first-order approximation, that's in the vicinity of it. Thanks!
Ok, so this would lead to restricting initial access to strong AI to a few well funded corporate and government groups. Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus.
True, but perhaps AGI would require substantial, non-trivial supercomputing resources as well...
OpenAI is extremely public about what organizations and individuals are involved. Satoshians are pathologically secret, from the founder to the faceless GPU mines around China.
OpenAI is highly selective of who participates; Blockchain is radically open.
OpenAI builds academic theories and models, bitcoin has been buying pizzas it's whole life, paying hackers and pranksters, and making and losing fortunes everyday.
Satoshi left no founding document, never established a charter or code of conduct. OpenAI now apparently considers itself on the mission to save humanity itself.
When AGI comes about, I wonder which one we'll be talking about?
So I have a question. To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? The manipulation of social media by foreign actors armed with dumb-AI / automation was an obvious conclusion to many of us well before the Snowden leaks, but what could we do exactly? I remember ha…
Basically, we're so far away from AGI that there's no need to worry about disclosig anything. The recent advances in machine vision and speech processing are impressive, but only in the context of the last 50 years or so. A trully intelligent agent will need much more than this and there doesn't seem to be anyone alive today who knows how to go from where we are to where AGI will be.
In other words, all this is really premature. If we're talking about responsible and regulated use of what you call "dumb AI/automation" on the other hand, then that's a differen tissue. But AGI, currently, is science fiction. You may as well regulate research in time travel, or teleportation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so this would lead to restricting initial access to strong AI to a few well funded corporate and government groups. Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus.
Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus. True, but perhaps AGI would require substantial, non-trivial supercomputing resources as well...
So I have a question. To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? The manipulation of social media by foreign actors armed with dumb-AI / automation was an obvious conclusion to many of us well before the Snowden leaks, but what could we do exactly? I remember ha…
>> What is the responsible disclosure process for ideas and research around AI? Basically, we're so far away from AGI that there's no need to worry about disclosig anything. The recent advances in machine vision and speech processing are impressive, but only in the context of the last 50 years or so. A trully intelligent agent will need much more than this and there doesn't seem to be anyone alive today who knows how…
If I have other shit in my head that I'm worried about today who do I tell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exact details on how to make a Thermonuclear weapon are classified, do you think that is done so improperly?
Are you comparing building a nuclear bomb to running a piece of code?