241–250 of 1001 posts
I'm still unconvinced safety is a concern at the model level. Any software wrongly used can be dangerous, e.g. Therac-25, 737 MAX, Fujitsu UK Post scandal... Also maybe I spent too much time in the cryptocurrency space but it doesn't help prefix "Safe" has been associated with scams like SafeMoon.
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?
It's probably not possible, which makes all these initiatives painfully naive.
> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…
But does anyone have any meaningful thoughts on how this plays out? I hear our industry thought leaders clamoring over this but not a single actual concrete idea of what this means in practice. We have no idea what the fundamental architecture for superintelligence would even begin to look like.
Not to mention the very real counter argument of “if it’s truly smarter than you it will always be one step ahead of you”. So you can think you have safety in place but you don’t. All of your indicators can show it’s safe. Every integration test can pass. But if you were to create a superintelligence with volition, you will truly never be able to control it, short of pulling the plug.
Even more so, let’s say you do create a safe superintelligence. There isn’t going to be just one instance. Someone else will do the same, but make it either intentionally unsafe or incidentally through lack of controls. And then all your effort is academic at best if unsafe superintelligence really does mean doomsday.
But again, we’re far from this being a reality that it’s wacky to act as if there’s a real problem space at hand.
Quite impressive how many AI companies Daniel Gross has had a hand in lately. Carmack, this, lots of other promising companies. I expect him to be quite a big player once some of these pays off in 10 years or so.
If you believe that super-intelligence is unavoidable and a serious risk to humanity, then the sensible thing to do is to prepare to leave the planet, ala Battlestart Galactica. That's going to be easier than getting the powers that be to agree and cooperate on sensible restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> compensation packages that truly gifted AI researchers can make now I guess it depends on your definition of "truly gifted" but, working in this space, I've found that there is very little correlation between comp and quality of AI research. There's absolutely some brilliant people working for big names and making serious money, there's also plenty of really talented people working for smaller startups doing incred…
TC optimization being tail call optimization?
Any usage of the word "safe" without an accompanying precise definition of it is utter null and void.
https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk, signed by Ilya Sutskever among others.
> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…
Technical. He's saying it's the most important technical problem of our time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't hire anyone who is a certified scrum master or has an MBA and you tend to be able to get a lot done.
This would work for very small companies...but I'm not sure how one can avoid product cycles forever, even without scrum masters and the like. More to the point, how can you make a good product without something approximating product cycles?
Didn't OpenAI start with these same goals in mind?
I don't want to pre-judge before seeing what they'll come up with, but the notice doesn't fill me with a lot of hope, given how it is already starting with the idea that anything getting in the way of raw research output is useless overhead. That's great until somebody has to make a call that one route to safety isn't going to work, and they'll have to start over with something less favored, sunk costs be damned. Then you're immediately back into monkey brain land.
Or said otherwise: if I only judged from the announcement, I would conclude that the eventual success of the safety portion of the mission is wholly dependent on everyone hired being in 100% agreement with the founders' principles and values with respect to AI and safety. People around here typically say something like "great, but it ain't gonna scale" for things like that.