31–40 of 105 posts
This strikes me as the best outcome as long as it stops here. This lets the White House move on from the nonsense AI x-risk discussion without being attacked for not doing anything about it, and also doesn't let the companies use fake x-risk to kill off open source models.
> Biden-Harris Administration will continue to take decisive action by developing an Executive Order and pursuing bipartisan legislation to keep Americans safe
I've seen some papers on watermarking, but none of them are what I'd call "robust" - they're easily defeated by making small changes to the data. Are the companies "committing" to overcome an unsolved (and possibly unsolvable) technical challenge?
Kind of like how the White House secured commitments from banks to manage systemic financial risks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What the fuck even is "AI" anyway? Indeed. For most lay people I've talked to -- family, friends, and acquiescence outside of tech -- the answer ultimately boils down to "automation that can do my job or can do the job of people I care about or can do the job of people who would then compete for my job". Sometimes also "algorithms" a la social media feeds and so on. Ie, the lay answer to "what is AI?" has recently…
If you look at actual quotes from people like Sam Altman, Ilya Sutskever, Demis Hassabis, etc. the AI, that is to say really the AGI, that they want to build is a godlike super intelligent being. To many researchers in the field this is their end goal.
Would have been nice to see that. Even right now there are known security vulnerabilities that were found through testing but haven’t been fixed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you think about it, its actual insanity. The fears are all from science fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality. There are legitimate concerns about the unethical mass harvesting of data but if you think about "AI safety" vs something like vehicular safety or spacecraft safety its kind of nuts, because the latter are grounded in reality and have formal specifications which need to be met. But AI safety is…
> What the fuck even is "AI" anyway? Indeed. For most lay people I've talked to -- family, friends, and acquiescence outside of tech -- the answer ultimately boils down to "automation that can do my job or can do the job of people I care about or can do the job of people who would then compete for my job". Sometimes also "algorithms" a la social media feeds and so on. Ie, the lay answer to "what is AI?" has recently…
But in some sense, so it "tech". The paperclip is a highly evolved technology, for example, [1], but working on those doesn't mean you work "in tech". Tech meant something like, "the new stuff that is impacting our lives but we don't know how to handle". So a CTO's job generally doesn't include the paperclips, the copiers, or the company cars, however technological they are.
And as with any shiny new marketing term, others will quickly rush in. There was the craze for radioactivity, which resulted in a bunch of radioactive patent medicines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_quackery
But even more interesting to me is the extent to which it was used as a pure marketing term, with no radioactivity expected. E.g.: https://lucyjanesantos.com/a-batschari-radium-cigarettes/
So I'm sure we'll be seeing all sorts of things branded "AI" even when they don't use any of the technologies involved. With no trademark on the term or organization to defend it, it's open season for all the sketch marketers.
[1] For those who doubt, Petroski's "The Evolution of Useful Things" will set you straight: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Useful-Things-Artifacts-Zip...
This strikes me as the best outcome as long as it stops here. This lets the White House move on from the nonsense AI x-risk discussion without being attacked for not doing anything about it, and also doesn't let the companies use fake x-risk to kill off open source models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you also need to draw a line between different types of danger: An actual AGI, that can think and has it's own motives and initiative is an entirely different danger to GPT-4, -5 etc which cannot. Those might post a danger in terms of fake news, or worker displacement, but they're just social issues. No rate improvement in chat GPT will make it "decide to kill all the humans" etc.
Every time I hear how artificial intelligence with its "own motives" etc. are dangerous, I wonder how it's different from just dealing with people and animals. Or to put it another way, I can't see how artificial intelligence could be any more dangerous than intelligence as we already know and have them.
Looks like the companies all agreed to do what they were doing already. Nothing about training data transparency , nothing about a common definition of risk or standards for compliance. The public have all heard “AI is going to destroy humanity” but those statements have been short on specifics. I have been asked by many people to explain how AI could kill us all. How about some clarity for common people.
if you think about it, its actual insanity. The fears are all from science fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality. There are legitimate concerns about the unethical mass harvesting of data but if you think about "AI safety" vs something like vehicular safety or spacecraft safety its kind of nuts, because the latter are grounded in reality and have formal specifications which need to be met. But AI safety is…
The whole argument with AI safety seems to be about how AI can say some "harmful misinformation". Ok. I can say harmful misinformation too, and I'm a real person with feelings that can be expressed to other people.
"AI safety" takes a view that people are inherently stupid, that people have no ability for complex thought and critical thinking.
To me this seems like AI companies such as OpenAI want to stop open-source and monopolize AI where you have to have a government certification to create AI models. Plus a bit of paranoia from the totalitarian liberals who only want consensus rather than debate.
At least there are valid concerns for training models on copyrighted works. Maybe we should focus much more on that rather than on "the AI said something that I don't like".