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

Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 117 posts

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#21

Post by corethree »

rileycantread wrote: post #17
pawelmurias wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the AI bots provide better health care then the psychotherapy meat puppets won't it be a win? Those kind of people are most commonly language model kind of humans with little general intelligence logical reasoning so easy to replace by a LLM. People often become psychologists to treat their own mental issues so even the meat puppets share the weakness of suffering from hallucinations.

>Those kind of people are most commonly language model kind of humans with little general intelligence logical reasoning so easy to replace by a LLM. What negative experience do you have with specifically people who are psychiatrists (not a fan of the practice either) that justifies totally dehumanising them like this?

Profit Incentives. By nature humans are a contradictory creatures capable of both good and evil. In the medical field the evil part gets maximized because they see so many patients they get lazy and lose the desire to do good and they also lose sensitivity against avoiding evil. So what happens is they will lie for more money. Very common.

Dehumanization is a term about getting rid of the evil and the good because being human is about both evil and good. That's not what the parent is doing. You're the one interpreting humanity through a dehumanizing lens. You should expect immorality and incompetence from humanity by default. Any other view is dehumanizing.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#22

Post by sfn42 »

darkerside wrote: post #16
vasco wrote: post #9

These people are too full of themselves. The physicists that invented The Bomb didn't have any special insight into the philosophical and societal implications. It takes a special kind of person to be able to invent something so big it can change the world, but it's about 0% chance that those people can control how the technology then gets used. I wish they'd focus more on the technical advances and less on trying to…

Their insight is just as valid as anybody else's. The difference is, as the people who can actually take that step forward, they have a unilateral ability to take it, not take it, or decide how to take it. I think they are exactly the right amount full of themselves. Their insight may not be special, but what makes some bureaucrat's insight more valuable than theirs?

Whatever steps they choose not to take, someone else will.

And LLMs aren't taking over the world any time in the foreseeable future, they're glorified parrots.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#23

Post by anonzzzies »

pawelmurias wrote: post #14
anonzzzies wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually it will 'win' though.

If the AI bots provide better health care then the psychotherapy meat puppets won't it be a win? Those kind of people are most commonly language model kind of humans with little general intelligence logical reasoning so easy to replace by a LLM. People often become psychologists to treat their own mental issues so even the meat puppets share the weakness of suffering from hallucinations.

I put 'win' between '' as I specifically didn't mean that type of win. That would obviously be a win. I mean 'win' in that we will replace people despite a worse outcome. If AI bots are better it's a real win, but they aren't yet and we don't know if they will be (there is hope of course).

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#24

Post by sfn42 »

corethree wrote: post #20
Out_of_Characte wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chatgpt's consciousness would be akin to plato's cave. Even if chatgpt were more intelligent, wouldn't it be staring at different shadows? Given that chatgpt has consciousness, would it be able to break the fourth wall? There seems to be an implicit assumption that it must break that in order to prove its consciousness to us. Maybe that's how AGI will come to be, because we desire to train it that way.

chatGPT is very much aware that it's looking at a shadow and it deduces what's beyond the shadow by looking at millions of different permutations of the shadow. Additionally breaking the fourth wall is trivial to it. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by fourth wall but chatGPT can definitely talk about it's own existence.

It can generate text that talks about its existence. It's not conscious, it isn't talking. It's just a.co puter program that takes an input and produces an output. Stop anthropomorphizing it.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#25

Post by sfn42 »

_ugfj wrote: post #2

> his new priority is to figure out how to stop an artificial superintelligence (a hypothetical future technology he sees coming with the foresight of a true believer) from going rogue. that's cute. What worries me is the here and now leading to a very imminent future where purported "artificial intelligence" which is just a plausible sentence generator but damn plausible alas will kill democracy and people. We are s…

The people who believe the vaxx bullshit don't read shit longer than a tweet anyway.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#26

Post by mattigames »

sfn42 wrote: post #22
darkerside wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their insight is just as valid as anybody else's. The difference is, as the people who can actually take that step forward, they have a unilateral ability to take it, not take it, or decide how to take it. I think they are exactly the right amount full of themselves. Their insight may not be special, but what makes some bureaucrat's insight more valuable than theirs?

Whatever steps they choose not to take, someone else will. And LLMs aren't taking over the world any time in the foreseeable future, they're glorified parrots.

The former president of the US is a glorified parrot, sometimes not even good at that, and still he was able to become president, so I wouldn't hold a defense for it to just that.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#27

Post by jampekka »

vasco wrote: post #9

These people are too full of themselves. The physicists that invented The Bomb didn't have any special insight into the philosophical and societal implications. It takes a special kind of person to be able to invent something so big it can change the world, but it's about 0% chance that those people can control how the technology then gets used. I wish they'd focus more on the technical advances and less on trying to…

Not that people, especially tech oligarchs, aren't full of themselves, but many physicists who were inventing the bomb, most famously Oppenheimer, also laid a lot of the philosophical basis of implications of nuclear weapons.

The situation may be a bit different now. The megacorporate world is the biggest threat from these tech developments, and the inventors are getting deeply embedded in this. Sort of similar situation that implications of nuclear weapons would be handled only by the military.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#28

Post by couchand »

pawelmurias wrote: post #14
anonzzzies wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually it will 'win' though.

If the AI bots provide better health care then the psychotherapy meat puppets won't it be a win? Those kind of people are most commonly language model kind of humans with little general intelligence logical reasoning so easy to replace by a LLM. People often become psychologists to treat their own mental issues so even the meat puppets share the weakness of suffering from hallucinations.

Please keep the discourse on HN civil.

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#29

Post by adverbly »

vasco wrote: post #9

These people are too full of themselves. The physicists that invented The Bomb didn't have any special insight into the philosophical and societal implications. It takes a special kind of person to be able to invent something so big it can change the world, but it's about 0% chance that those people can control how the technology then gets used. I wish they'd focus more on the technical advances and less on trying to…

Respectfully, I totally disagree.

I am become death, destroyer of worlds.

The Nuremberg Trials.

And AGI is 10x impact of nuclear.

Builders are not cogs, and should not try to be them.

We need MORE ethics and good intentions - not less. It is the psychopathic corrupt business rot we should be afraid of - not people actively trying to do good

Re: Rogue superintelligence: Inside the mind of OpenAI's chief scientist

#30

Post by orangepurple »

anonzzzies wrote: post #7

I think the immediate problem with AI is none of the sci-fi stuff (which, by the way, has been in sci-fi for many decades and is nothing revolutionary or new; we always expected to go there, just the timelines seem to have compressed, although not really either; most 60-70s scifi set AGI stuff in the begin 90s and begin 00s); I think it's the entire world changing into a helpdesk experience. Everything you try to do,…

Americans would be wise not to give up their guns under any circumstances
Post reply on HN