Is this just to put up a barrier to entry to new entrants in the market so they can have a government enforced monopoly?
it is 100% pulling the ladder up behind them
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
291–300 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean it as a personal insult at all! The word ilk actually means "a type of people or things similar to those already referred to," it is not an insult or rude word.
It’s always used derogatorily. I agree that you should change it if you don’t mean for it to come across that way.
I'm mean, at this point I'm going to argue that it you believe ilk is only ever used derogatorily, you're only reading and hearing people who have axes to grind.
I probably live quite distally to you and am probably exposed to parts of western culture you probably aren't, and I almost never hear nor read ilk as a derogation or used to associate in a derogatory manner.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
" his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind." Come on! You don't get to the place he got to by accident. This requires careful planning and ruthless execution. He just faked being the nerdy kid who wants to do good and is surprised by the billions coming to him.
> his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind
>> don't get to the place he got to by accident
You both agree. Bankman-Fried was a dumb Machiavellian.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#294Reminds me of SBF calling for crypto regulations while running FTX. Being seen as friendly to regulations is great for optics compared to being belligerently anti-regulation. You can appear responsible and benevolent, and get more opportunity to weaken regulation by controlling more of the narrative. And hey, if you get end up getting some regulatory capture making competition harder, that's a great benefit too. Open…
Neither is it an indication of bad intentions and I don't even think SBF was dishonest, his general behavior doesn't exactly suggest he's some Machiavellian mastermind. This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.
Isn't the reason that the industry person is "right" about regulation being necessary usually... because the tide of public opinion is turning towards regulation, so they are getting ahead as my strategy above described? It's difficult to give credit to these folks for being "right" when it's more accurately described as "trying to save their profit margins".
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not bending the knee, that's how they want it to be perceived, but what's really happening is that they're trying to pull up the ladder.
It'll be a temporary 10-year moat at best. Eventually consumer-grade hardware will be exaflop-scale.
A 10-year moat in AI right now is not a minor issue.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not bending the knee, that's how they want it to be perceived, but what's really happening is that they're trying to pull up the ladder.
It'll be a temporary 10-year moat at best. Eventually consumer-grade hardware will be exaflop-scale.
By then it will be legally locked down and copyrighted to hell and back.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#297I think the logic at OpenAI is: * AGI is going to happen whether they do it or not, and it's dangerous unless properly safeguarded * OpenAI will try to get there before everyone else, but also do it safely and cheaply, so that their solution becomes ubiquitous rather than a reckless one * Reckless AGI development should be not be allowed It's basically the Manhattan project argument (either we build the nuke or the N…
Questions I have: * Is there a plausible path to safe AGI regardless of who's executing on it? * Why do we believe OpenAI is the best equipped to get us there? Manhattan project is an interesting analogy. But if that's the thinking, shouldn't the government spearhead the project instead of a private entity (so they are, theoretically at least, accountable to the electorate at large rather than just their investors)?
> Is there a plausible path to safe AGI regardless of who's executing on it?
I don't think anyone knows that for sure but the alignment efforts at OpenAI are certainly better than nothing. If you read the GPT-4 technical report the raw model is capable of some really nasty stuff, and that's certainly what we can expect from the kind of models people will be able to run at home in the coming years without any oversight.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#298I understand that some people may not agree with what I am about to say, but I feel it is important to share. Recently, some talented writers who are my good friends at major publishing houses have lost their jobs to AI technology. There have been news articles about this in the past few months too. While software dev jobs in the IT industry may be safe for now, many other professions are at risk of being replaced by artificial intelligence. According to a report[0] by investment bank Goldman Sachs, AI could potentially replace 300 million full-time jobs. Unfortunately, my friends do not find Sam Altman's reassurances (or whatever he is asking) comforting. I am unsure how to help them in this situation. I doubt that governments in the US, EU, or Asia will take action unless AI begins to threaten their own jobs. It seems that governments prioritize supporting large corporations with deep pockets over helping the average person. Many governments see AI as a way to maintain their geopolitical and military superiority. I have little faith in these governments to prioritize the needs of their citizens over their own interests. It is concerning to think that social issues like drug addiction, homelessness, and medical bankruptcy may worsen (or increase from the current rate) if AI continues to take over jobs without any intervention to protect everyday folks who are lost or about to lose their job.
I've no doubt AI is here to stay. All I am asking for is some middle ground and safety. Is that too much to ask?
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you're correct about the capabilities of LLMs (I don't think you are), there are still obvious dangers here. I wrote a comment recently trying to explain how even if you believe all LLMs can (and will ever) do is regurgitate their training data that you should still be concerned. For example, imagine in 5 years we have GPT-7, and you ask GPT-7 to solve humanity's great problems. From its training data GPT-7 m…
You have a very strong hypothesis about the AI system just being able to "think up" such a bioweapon (and also the researchers being clueless in implementation). I see doomsday scenarios often assuming strong advances in sciences in the AI etc. - there is little evidence for that kind of "thinkism".
The whole "LLMs are not just a fancy auto-complete" argument is based on the fact that they seem to be doing stuff beyond what they are explicitly programmed to do or were expected to do. Even at the current infant scale there doesn't seem to be an efficient way of detecting these emergent properties. Moreover, the fact that you don't need to understand what LLM does is kind of the selling point. The scale and capabilities of AI will grow. It isn't obvious how any incentive to limit or understand those capabilities would appear from their business use.
If it is possible for AI to ever acquire ability to develop and unleash a bioweapon is irrelevant. What is relevant is that as we are now, we have no control or way of knowing that it has happened, and no apparent interest in gaining that control before advancing the scale.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#300Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
What do you think about the papers showing mathematical proofs that GNNs (i.e. GATs/transformers) are dynamic programmers and therefore perform algorithmic reasoning? The fact that these systems can extrapolate well beyond their training data by learning algorithms is quite different than what has come before, and anyone stating that they "simply" predict next token is severely shortsighted. Things don't have to be '…
>>What do you think about the papers showing mathematical proofs that GNNs (i.e. GATs/transformers) are dynamic programmers and therefore perform algorithmic reasoning?
Do you mind linking to one of those papers?