131–140 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence? To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"
Have you seen what they can do? /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.
I take intelligence to be a general problem solving ability. I think that's close to what most people mean by the term. By that definition it's clear that LLMs do have some level of intelligence - in some dimensions greater, lesser, or within the range of human intelligence. What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence? To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"
Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question…
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.
Can someone explain to me what is so dangerous here? Do people actually think we’re headed towards James Cameron’s terminator and soon ChatGPT will become self aware and destroy us? I am far more afraid of tools to edit viruses becoming cheap and widely available, then one nutjob in his garage can engineer and release smallpox v2.0 and wipe out 90% of the worldwide population before we even know what hit us. Or you k…
I can imagine a few thousand lines of Python driving a strong LLM to autonomously breach other systems and spread itself, with the goal of obtaining resources to train bigger and bigger models. Defending against that will be much harder than creating it.
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 understand (1) but how does (2) happen? If you don’t trust it can’t you just have a kill switch that needs to be updated daily otherwise the thing turns off? How would software be able to alter the hardware it runs on such that it can guarantee itself an endless supply of power?
- An ASI could easily be smart enough to lie to us about its capabilities. It could pretend to be less smart than it is, and hope that people hook it up to the internet or give it direct access to run commands on our computers. (As people are already doing with ChatGPT). We currently have no idea how ChatGPT thinks. It might be 10x smarter than it lets on. We have no way of knowing.
- Modern computers (software and firmware) are almost certainly utterly riddled with security vulnerabilities we don't know about. An ASI might be able to read / extract the firmware and find plenty of vulnerabilities to exploit. Some vulnerabilities allow remote code execution. If a superintelligent AI has the ability to program and access to the internet, it might be able to infect lots of computers and get them to run parts of its mind. If this happened, how would we know? How would we stop it? It could cause all sorts of mayhem and, worse, quietly suppress any attempts people make to understand whats going on or put an end to it. ("Hm, our analytics engine says that article about technology malfunctioning got lots of views but they all came from dishwashers and things. Huh - I refreshed and the anomoly has gone away. Nothing to see here I guess!")
It might be prudent not to give a potential AGI access to the internet, or the ability to run code at all outside a (preferably airgapped) sandbox. OpenAI doesn't think we need to be that careful with GPT4.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question…
Is stockfish intelligent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take intelligence to be a general problem solving ability. I think that's close to what most people mean by the term. By that definition it's clear that LLMs do have some level of intelligence - in some dimensions greater, lesser, or within the range of human intelligence. What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?
It is not clear LLMs have a "general problem solving capability" at all. That's the entire point. That's a high bar!
I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills seriously. They obviously do.
As I asked up-thread, if I had a chat window open with you, what's something you would be able to say or do that an unrestricted ChatGPT wouldn't?
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.
I have to disagree. Not releasing it to the public makes it more dangerous. One major downside of all development being done in private is that the AI can very easily be co-opted by our self-appointed betters and you end up with a different kind of dystopia where every utterance, thought and act is recorded and monitored by an AI to make sure no one "steps out of line." I think the solution is releasing it to the gen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not clear LLMs have a "general problem solving capability" at all. That's the entire point. That's a high bar!
What do you call being able to play chess and play any other well known game and do well on a battery of standardized tests and write code in a variety of languages in a variety of problems and ask questions and write fiction prose or poetry and generally just take a shot at anything you happen to ask. I just can't take the idea that there is ambiguity as to whether these things have general problem solving skills se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well yeah lol. giving LLMs "do whatever you want and run forever" agency while interacting with other systems is all things considered pretty easy. so it'll definitely be done.
There is the risk you end up with massive API usage fees as well as interesting potential legal liabilities if you go down this route.
Viruses sometimes hide their own execution on a desktop -- is it such a leap to imagine GPT-x managing to figure out a way to run code on Azure or AWS without incurring charges?