What about benefitting non-human animals? Hopefully the benefits are distributed to all creatures and not just humanity.
OpenAI Charter
31–40 of 183 posts
Re: OpenAI Charter
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.
haven't read a ton into it, but whatever Google is doing with the Pentagon probably runs counter to what OpenAI claims to be after.
Not necessarily. Project Maven probably has no intention of developing AGI and therefore probably is not a concern to value alignment problem.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#33AI, AGI, and real intelligence all learn from actions and feedback. Looking at simple analogs from animal and human counterparts, setting boundaries and teaching beneficial rules, called morals, works somewhat in non-zero sum environments, but inevitably requires policing when the environment turns competitive. Safety in any case would require Intelligence-proof fencing and a really big stick even the most resource-r…
Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear. AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a…
> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels.
I'm pretty sure this is false.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#34"we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future" -- So we are now in a dissemination phase, but at that point it becomes a non-proliferation phase.
The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved. Those who've stated otherwise or with much verbiage eventually arrive at this obvious state. Therefore, publications up until now under the banner of 'AGI' have largely been insignificant in terms of their capability to achieve the core technological aspects of AGI. No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology. This can easily be proofed by sound logic and reasoning. There was a commercial step to possibly tease others into revealing heavily valuable/powerful technological underpinnings.. It failed, no one took the bait, and no one ever likely will. This has resulted in revised and more mature statements.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#35> We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.
OpenAI is doing cool stuff, and this tenet sounds nice. But what right do they have to advocate for policy on behalf of all AI researchers and developers? They could easily shut off branches that are not conducive to commercial applications requiring their research, even by accident. They might miss moral edge cases that could ultimately benefit humanity while trying to close off potential risks. They could encourage institution of a policy that limits US effectiveness against China's AI. I could go on.
The more competition there is in AI, the lower the potential for any one rogue agent - whether it be a corporation or autonomous machine - to dominate and take the whole field in wrong or dangerous directions. Eventually there will be a whole AI subfield dedicated to combating regressive effects of other AI. Legislation at this stage might prevent key developments.
Edit: Perhaps I should more charitably read this as a push against the corporate lockdown of AI.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#36"we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future" -- So we are now in a dissemination phase, but at that point it becomes a non-proliferation phase.
The true nature of AGI research has always been heavy restrictions on the core aspects of the technology. This is where true safety and sensibility is achieved. Those who've stated otherwise or with much verbiage eventually arrive at this obvious state. Therefore, publications up until now under the banner of 'AGI' have largely been insignificant in terms of their capability to achieve the core technological aspects…
> No one in their right mind would ever publish significant details about AGI technology.
Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I'm in my right mind; I guess that depends on definition, doesn't it?
Re: OpenAI Charter
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weak AI is dangerous because it has no intelligence. It is fundamentally structured as a dumb/blind optimization process. The efforts necessary to proof safety/security for such a system could very well outweigh the amount of development that was needed to bring the technology to bear. AGI/Real Intelligence are far different animals than Weak AI and would require far less "safety" and policing. Real Intelligence is a…
> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels. I'm pretty sure this is false.
Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have something valuable that you want to secure, magically you come up with ways to safely secure it.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#38> We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power. OpenAI is doing cool stuff, and this tenet sounds nice. But what right do they have to advocate for policy on behalf of all AI researchers and developers? They could easily shut off branches that are not conducive to comme…
point is: AI is different than your usual game, in that the winner might appear randomly, and destroy the world if she makes a mistake. so i believe open ais points are warrented
Re: OpenAI Charter
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Overall, AGI exists in a functional form today and has been executed in an online environment. It is secured via physically restricted in-band and out-of-band channels. I'm pretty sure this is false.
Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future. As for the security, you'd have no ability to penetrate internal aspects of it without physical and detectable access patterns. This is achieved using common sense design methodologies that are already proofed industry standards. Behaving as though securitization is theoretically smacks as a cash grab to me. If you have some…
> Check my comment history. I can assure you its true as I will demonstrate in the near future.
Oh, why didn't you just say that in the first place? Now that I have your assurance I can obviously agree with you that strong AI is a thing that currently exists. I concede to your clear and inarguable expertise and proof on the matter; best of luck with your demonstration!
Re: OpenAI Charter
#40> We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. Wouldn't it be much more likely that a non-value-aligned project comes close first? Wouldn't the Google/Apple/Microsofts of the w…
Yes, it's pretty hard to take that line seriously. At minimum it's very charitable framing, considering there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.