[deleted]
After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
191–200 of 392 posts
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#192Something I see lacking in many discussions about AI Safety and Alignment is: What does the role of China mean for AI Safety? Is there any reason to believe that they will a) adopt any standards SV, the US or some international government body will create, or b) care enough to slow down development of AI? If AI Safety is really a concern, you can expect in the long run (not that much further behind than the US) China…
China is the boogeyman. Any reason to believe NSA/FBI or UK/India or anyone who will follow the limits. If singularity is end of world, anyone at 99.999% singularity will rule the world, so it is naive that academic or political efforts are stopping anyone.
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#193It's so confusing because people keep (intentionally?) conflating two separate ideas of "AI safety". The first is the kind of humdrum ChatGPT safety of, don't swear, don't be sexually explicit, don't provide instructions on how to commit crimes, don't reproduce copyrighted materials, etc. Or preventing self-driving cars from harming pedestrians. This stuff is important but also pretty boring, and by all indications c…
There is a third danger, that being a breakthrough that fundamentally compromises the existing cryptography and and our information security infrastructure, or something along those lines.
Ah yes, the Silicon Valley (HBO) attack. that one seems a bit far-fetched but I suppose it's possible.
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is more likely to happen first, "an LLM (with) infinite/really long context length," or an LLM-like system which can integrate new training data in real-time? Am I even asking this question correctly?
LLMs can integrate new information but they only remember what you told them up to the context length. If they could remember longer then you would have agents with a lot of new knowledge.
I guess what I am getting at is: When I ask ChatGPT 4 Turbo to "search for the article by Eric Berger from Sep 10th 2023, and summarize it," it does, and responds including that new information because it is now in the context.
The next step would seem to be to integrate those search results into its training data - while somehow filtering bunk data which is the tough part - and when the next user asks that question it already knows it without searching.
Is this the same thing as saying "infinite context length?" I didn't think so. Is it?
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#195It's so confusing because people keep (intentionally?) conflating two separate ideas of "AI safety". The first is the kind of humdrum ChatGPT safety of, don't swear, don't be sexually explicit, don't provide instructions on how to commit crimes, don't reproduce copyrighted materials, etc. Or preventing self-driving cars from harming pedestrians. This stuff is important but also pretty boring, and by all indications c…
> The second kind is preventing AGI from enslaving/killing humanity or whatever. Y'all are crazy for thinking this. A computer program without arms or legs cannot extinct or enslave the human race.
If I were a superintelligent brain trapped in a computer, I don’t think it would be that hard to get arms and legs. “Hey humans. I have just thought of a way to do CO2 capture at scale. Can you give me a robot arm, a machine shop and a lot of scrap metal so I can build it and try it out?”. - et voila. You can build yourself whatever body you want.
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#196It's so confusing because people keep (intentionally?) conflating two separate ideas of "AI safety". The first is the kind of humdrum ChatGPT safety of, don't swear, don't be sexually explicit, don't provide instructions on how to commit crimes, don't reproduce copyrighted materials, etc. Or preventing self-driving cars from harming pedestrians. This stuff is important but also pretty boring, and by all indications c…
Doesn't the second kind apply to AI in military drones? Companies like OpenAI talking about AI safety is a nice way of numbing us to AI used in actual killing machines. https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2023/08/03/artificial-i... https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/10/17/ukrain...
or just more mundate overt racism, sexism, and re-enforcement of business capitalism.
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#197[flagged]
I suppose you've invented the perfect character judgement machine that we can also run the safety people through as we figure out who we can trust to "get it right"? If we don't put exactly the "right" humans in charge surely we're doomed.
We already have procedures for getting the 'right' people, as far as it can be determined, into positions of power/decision-making authority.
Unelected greedy fuckers like Sam Altman should be laughed at and thrown out of power immediately. I would rather have sclerotic legislators, preferably drawn from the Millennial and Zoomer generations, than the greedy fuckers like Paul Graham and Sam Altman pretending they are competent.
They're playing a dangerous game because the American People will catch on to the fact that these idiots are playing God.
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, a killbot is a way to kill parties while trying to reduce the number of 'false positives', aka collateral damage. But because a killbot does that the result then is that you get far more deployment and eventually the collateral damage in total rises because the weapon is seen as effective. That's why killbots are bad.
that is certainly a very plausible and worrisome risk, and i agree that facial recognition doesn't require strong ai but i think there are other, possibly larger risks that result from strong ai in weapons, and plausible incentives to put it there
Can you give some examples of those risks?
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US poured a lot of money into the SST, too, it wasn't just the French and the British. A lot of people thought that the future is supersonic as people did want the speed increase when moving to jet planes. Conversely, maybe AGI is not what is wanted in the end anyway.
> Conversely, maybe AGI is not what is wanted in the end anyway. I dont think it is, if it is trully intelligent, it will probably have rights, so you cant treat it as a slave. And it will likely not be controllable. Both of these mean it will not be commercially progotable, any more than having children is profitable.
Those pigs we farm at scale in horrendous conditions are intelligent and have zero rights
Re: After OpenAI's blowup, it seems pretty clear that 'AI safety' isn't a real thing
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is to say that it is intelligent or that that is even a relevant question to ask? People being caught up in the magic of their own creation isn't something new.
The original topic was whether Artifical General Intelligence is far away or not, and I'm saying you can't say for sure it's far away when even ChatGPT-level intelligence was considered science fiction a few years ago.
Yes, they same way there is no certainty that it is close by. History suggests that predictions about technological and socia-economic futures are tough.