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

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

ssi.inc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#151

Post by cherioo »

aresant wrote: post #39

Prediction - the business model becomes an external protocol - similar to SSL - that the litany of AI companies working to achieve AGI will leverage (or be regulated to use) From my hobbyist knowledge of LLMs and compute this is going to be a terrifically complicated problem, but barring a defined protocol & standard there's no hope that "safety" is going to be executed as a product layer given all the different appr…

I like your idea. But on the other hand, training an AGI, and then having a layer on top “aligning” the AGI sounds super dystopian and good plot for a movie.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#152

Post by localfirst »

This feels awfully similar to Emad and stability in the beginning when there was a lot of expectations and hype. Ultimately could not make a buck to cover the costs. I'd be curious to see what comes out of this however but we are not seeing the leaps and bounds with new llm iterations so wonder if there is something else in store

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#153

Post by MacsHeadroom »

mhardcastle wrote: post #103
weego wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, what does it matter. We're many lifetimes away from anything. These people are trying to define concepts that don't apply to us or what we're currently capable of. AI safety / AGI anything is just a form of tech philosophy at this point and this is all academic grift just with mainstream attention and backing.

This goes massively against the consensus of experts in this field. The modal AI researcher believes that "high-level machine intelligence", roughly AGI, will be achieved by 2047, per the survey below. Given the rapid pace of development in this field, it's likely that timelines would be shorter if this were asked today. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/1/10/24032987/ai-imp...

51% odds of the ARC AGI Grand Prize being claimed by the end of next year, on Manifold Markets.

https://manifold.markets/JacobPfau/will-the-arcagi-grand-pri...

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#154

Post by cscurmudgeon »

Retr0id wrote: post #116
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does everything have to do with capitalism nowadays? Racism, unsafe roads, hunger, bad weather, good weather, stubbing toes on furniture, etc. Don't believe me? See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... Are there any non-capitalist utopias out there without any problems like this?

This is literally a discussion on allocation of capital, it's not a reach to say that capitalism might be involved.

Right, so you draw a line from that to abolishing capitalism.

Is that the only solution here? We need to destroy billions of lives so that we can potentially prevent "unsafe" super intelligence?

Let me guess, your cure for cancer involves abolishing humanity?

Should we abolish governments when some random government goes bad?

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#155

Post by mdp2021 »

visarga wrote: post #48
stale_data wrote: post #28

the vision here is amazing, but I can't help but feel a bit uncertain about basing a "safe super intelligence" lab in an apartheid state that is currently genociding its indigenous population using variants of the very same technology

But basing it in US who launched the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is safe?

Well, yes¹: if it actually contributes to intelligent action, this is exactly the goal - you nailed it. Safer, more sensible action for individuals, communities, and statal entities. "Less mistakes in the future" - that would be a good motto.

(¹: whether basing a [successful in substance] "safe super intelligence" lab in an environment with imperfect record would improve safety.)

--

And now let us see if the sniper can come up with a good argument...

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#156

Post by insane_dreamer »

lopuhin wrote: post #17
blixt wrote: post #3

Kind of sounds like OpenAI when it started, so will history repeat itself? Nonetheless, excited to see what comes out of it.

Not quite the same, OpenAI was initially quite open, while Ilia is currently very explicitly against opening or open-sourcing research, e.g. see https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/15/23640180/openai-gpt-4-lau...

It wasn't that OpenAI was open as in "open source" but rather that its stated mission was to research AI such that all could benefit from it (open), as well as to ensure that it could not be controlled by any one player, rather than to develop commercial products to sell and make a return on (closed).

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#157

Post by hackerlight »

frenchie4111 wrote: post #14

I am not on the bleeding edge of this stuff. I wonder though: How could a safe super intelligence out compete an unrestricted one? Assuming another company exists (maybe OpenAI) that is tackling the same goal without spending the cycles on safety, what chance do they have to compete?

This is not a trivial point. Selective pressures will push AI towards unsafe directions due to arms race dynamics between companies and between nations. The only way, other than global regulation, would be to be so far ahead that you can afford to be safe without threatening your own existence.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#158

Post by soulofmischief »

arbuge wrote: post #80
vasco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end game, a "non-safe" superinteligence seems easier to create, so like any other technology, some people will create it (even if just because they can't make it safe). And in a world with multiple superintelligent agents, how can the safe ones "win"? It seems like a safe AI is at inherent disadvantage for survival.

The current intelligences of the world (us) have organized their civilization in a way that the conforming members of society are the norm and criminals the outcasts. Certainly not a perfect system, but something along those lines for the most part. I like to think AGIs will decide to do that too.

It's a beautiful system, wherein "criminality" can be used to label and control any and all persons who disagree with the whim of the incumbent class.

Perhaps this isn't a system we should be trying to emulate with a technology that promises to free us of our current inefficiencies or miseries.

Post reply on HN