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

Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 508 posts

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#191

Post by MVissers »

fabrice_d wrote: post #57
MVissers wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at compute scaling and model improvement on that compute, we’re going to get there pretty fast. Both compute, architecture and cost matter, and those have been improving like crazy. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t expect GPT-4o to come out at half the price one year later, with real-time voice, image and text. There is zero sign of slowing, Nvidia keeps building beefier GPUs specialized in LLMs, the…

And still, Yann LeCun (head of AI at Meta, renowned AI/ML researcher) is convinced that we are far from reaching AGI. He makes convincing arguments, especially around the fact that we are not able to expose models to the amount of redundant information that even a young kid is exposed to. I guess we'll see some shifting goals around "what is even AGI". You say the we'll have soon "models that most of us consider AGI…

I mean, this new openai model is trained on video and voice as well.

So already, his argument is outdated. He had made a few of these claims over the last year that have been quickly disproven by a new model.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#192

Post by consumer451 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #186
consumer451 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. This is a very complex response, and I love it, even if I do find it a little frustrating due my current >95% bias towards biological supremacy. This deserves at least an hour-long podcast with Sean Carroll, or a good long book. There is too much to dig into here, so I will just attempt to respond to this: > Could AI running amok destroy the human race? Yes. Could AI serving madman human masters destroy th…

> then I am very scared for the next generation The next generation has enough problems without AI honestly, but specifically on UBI This who discussion assumes that current economic system survives AI, but how can it? Firstly, we seem to assume that AI will remain a controlled property of corporations that develop it. That is not a given. Maybe Open Source AI will win out, or public domain AI, the hat run by governm…

The only way that AI inference will become democratized is if the compute cost is lowered to the point where SOTA AI runs locally on RPI6, or a $200 Android device, or similar. Is that a real possibility?

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#193

Post by TaylorAlexander »

_heimdall wrote: post #119
Analemma_ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually talked to any AI safety people? They despise the DEI-flavored AI ethics "make sure it generates enough black people" stuff just as much as you do, and I think you're lumping the two of them together just based on your own dislike, without checking whether that's actually reflective of the reality on the ground.

I didn't actually mean to refer to the DEI-flavored AI ethics. That was totally unintentional on my part, I should have caught that. I raised both because I see them going down very similar paths. DEI conceptually is a really important idea and could lead to really important change or course correction. As implemented today though, it seems to most often be implemented as a much more surface level program that sure f…

> DEI conceptually is a really important idea and could lead to really important change or course correction. As implemented today though, it seems to most often be implemented as a much more surface level program that sure feels more like PR or legal protection than anything else.

I suspect that some DEI efforts are helpful and effective, and some DEI efforts are hollow or foolhardy. We probably can’t speak of “DEI today” as a monolith. Also we may be biased to hear about instances of it being stupid and ineffective because that can be a useful talking point to some. Instances where it works well and gets more people hired and engaged are less interesting to a predominantly white society, so maybe aren’t discussed as much outside of non-white communities.

Idk that’s all a load of speculation but I wanted to share these thoughts/observations about your argument.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#194

Post by Dalewyn »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #184
Dalewyn wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI" is one of two things depending on whether you think it's actually intelligent: * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. * If "AI" is not actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any other computer program. Both threat models are very thoroughly known and understood. I second parent commenter's sentiment that calling "AI" the "gravest of dang…

> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."

An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed.

Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#195

Post by ClumsyPilot »

talldayo wrote: post #181
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. It's interesting that's how it looks like to you from the outside. If you look a little closer at the "AI Safety" community, it consists of two competing factions: the faction responsible for the Bard debacle, and the faction that's focused on trying to prevent…

> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues". Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone…

> pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone falls on everyone, not one person.

That’s why we don’t let a random Joe fly a 747, there is extensive training, licensing, etc.

Do you envision the same for operating AI? In the real world you can’t even drive a moped without licence, registration and insurance. Same goes for access to dangerous chemicals. If AI is dangerous, this is the logical conclusion

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#196

Post by tbrownaw »

consumer451 wrote: post #183
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I no longer agree that the "safety" people want the same things we do. I suspect after the bard debacle a bit back that "safety" looks a lot more like 1984. It's interesting that's how it looks like to you from the outside. If you look a little closer at the "AI Safety" community, it consists of two competing factions: the faction responsible for the Bard debacle, and the faction that's focused on trying to prevent…

Way back in the day, almost 4 years ago, I recall a third front on AI safety. It was called UBI and it was really hot. What happened to that?

Massive inflation from the COVID shutdowns and stimulus checks happened.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#197

Post by talldayo »

comp_throw7 wrote: post #189
talldayo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They both insist that the other faction is "distracting everyone from the real issues". Because in part, it's a false dichotomy. AI safety just is. It's like airplane safety; we can write all these cool guidelines and track people from hell and back, but there's still a degree of determinative capability that pilots assume when they fly a plane. Same goes for operating AI; the onus of not using it to kill everyone…

> AI research operates independently of their discourse, and gets deployed without ever consulting any of them. They are armchair experts at best, and stoop to being Twitter reactionaries when they demand respect from their core audience. Astonishing claim, when some such researchers have (unfortunately) been responsible for many of the most impressive capabilities advancements in the last few years, and the three mo…

The world still funds AI that completely disregards the notion of "safety" out of the gate. You can argue that those AIs aren't dangerous to begin with, but I would counter that by arguing no AI is dangerous to begin with and this entire field is a brouhaha to wrestle legislative control from Open Source opponents.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#198

Post by startupsfail »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #70
startupsfail wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not like Microsoft’s CEO was behaving very admirably or free of ego.

For some reason people give Satya a pass. I guess because he comes off as a nice guy. Somehow no one associates all the anti competitive stuff MS does with him - like bundling Teams into Office, or forcing a Copilot button onto OEMs, or dark pattern nagging about default apps, or inserting ads into the start menu, or whatever. But that mode of operation is classic MS, and it makes sense they are still this way, since…

"We are below them, above them, around them." - doesn’t sound particularly ego free or nice.

And it seems that between the choice of OpenAI reassembling at Microsoft and OpenAI continuing under Sam Altman, the nonprofit board had decided to go ahead with Sam Altman.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#199

Post by comp_throw7 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #146
m3kw9 wrote: post #92

He is basically saying there was a mis-balance in the perception of risk between this likely doomer and most tech staff that is there. There is no Terminator to align and LLM going “rogue” and killing everyone is way overblown to pause development

"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk#open-letter What do you know that Geoff Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, Bill Gates, Stuart Russell, etc. don't?

Don't forget... Sam Altman! (Also, Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." Feb 15, 2015, before he co-founded OpenAI. https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1)

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#200

Post by mlyle »

Dalewyn wrote: post #194
comp_throw7 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * If "AI" is actually intelligent, then it's no worse a threat than any living being known to man. ...does not follow? "If an atom bomb is actually a bomb, then it's no worse a threat than any other existing bomb known to man."

An atomic bomb explodes. A bomb explodes. Both are very destructive. Is there a difference? I say no, and I say that as a Japanese-American who visited Hiroshima Peace Memorial numerous times and never felt anything particular from the exhibits. People die when they are killed. Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living…

> Likewise, if "AI" is actually intelligent then it is no worse a threat than a bumbling baby or a Vladimir Putin or a dog, among other living beings.

I think a dog and a dictator might both be able to have negative impacts, but treating them as equal just shows a desire to troll. A dog can only bite so many people.

Post reply on HN