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

Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 409 posts

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#351

Post by riversflow »

ben_w wrote: post #347
riversflow wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to prevent that You mean a complete hypothetical outside of scifi? Lets start worrying about alien invasions too? Our planet is actually, not hypothetically, becoming uninhabitable due to pollutiom. I am so tired of ML people thinking they are god and have created something of infinite power. The hubris. The birds eye view is that we need tons of major breakthroughs to allow us to overcome this climate…

> You mean a complete hypothetical outside of scifi? 18 months ago, so was having an AI make even so much as a toy website by drawing a sketch on a sheet of paper, taking a photo, captioning it "make me a website that looks like this", and pressing the "go" button. > Our planet is actually, not hypothetically, becoming uninhabitable due to pollutiom. I am so tired of ML people thinking they are god and have created s…

> 18 months ago, so was having an AI make

Nah, I've been waiting for this since Adobe released Content Aware Fill over a decade ago.

> No, the planet is not becoming uninhabitable

We are destroying the biosphere quickly. Have you seen a reef lately? Globally we still rely on our biosphere for food. We haven't solved this problem. If we can't feed everyone it's not inhabitable.

> lots of people out there get benefits from the things that cause all the various kinds of pollution

Hence we need lots of breakthroughs to replace these old technologies, whether they be fishing or cancer treatments.

> AI can easily follow the scientific method,

It can't interact with the world so it can't perform science. Boston Dynamics has teams of human beings making robots, which are largely preprogrammed.

Making stuff in real life is really hard even with humans. We are so far away from needing to worry about this sort of AI safety. I mean, we haven't solved robotic fabric handling yet, it's why we still have sweatshops sewing our clothes.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#352

Post by cubefox »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #336
cubefox wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptography can't be used to produce weapons of mass destruction. It's a purely defensive technology. Engineered superviruses are a whole different caliber.

Wrong, cryptography is used to conceal the communications of people building nuclear weapons. It still should not be regulated.

Cryptography is just as useless for creating nuclear weapons as it is for creating bioweapons. AIs that help make WMDs are on a very different level.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#353

Post by cubefox »

riversflow wrote: post #351
ben_w wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You mean a complete hypothetical outside of scifi? 18 months ago, so was having an AI make even so much as a toy website by drawing a sketch on a sheet of paper, taking a photo, captioning it "make me a website that looks like this", and pressing the "go" button. > Our planet is actually, not hypothetically, becoming uninhabitable due to pollutiom. I am so tired of ML people thinking they are god and have created s…

> 18 months ago, so was having an AI make Nah, I've been waiting for this since Adobe released Content Aware Fill over a decade ago. > No, the planet is not becoming uninhabitable We are destroying the biosphere quickly. Have you seen a reef lately? Globally we still rely on our biosphere for food. We haven't solved this problem. If we can't feed everyone it's not inhabitable. > lots of people out there get benefits…

> Nah, I've been waiting for this since Adobe released Content Aware Fill over a decade ago.

What you were "waiting for" is highly irrelevant. People wait for AI science fiction, the relevant thing is that it increasingly becoming real.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#354

Post by spookthesunset »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #26
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #5

Because Meta is releasing their models to the public, I consider them the most ethical company doing AI at scale. Keeping AI models closed under the guise of “ethics”, is I think the most unethical stance as it makes people more dependent on the arbitrary decisions, goals, and priorities of big companies, instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves.

> instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves. Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for themselves. Not sure how that is unethical.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a “bad actor”? Sounds an awful lot like “dangerous misinformation”. And based on the last three years “dangerous misinformation” quite often means “information that goes against my narrative”

It’s a slippery slope letting private or even public entities define “bad actors” or “misinformation”. And it isn’t even a hypothetical… plenty of factually true information about covid got you labeled as a “bad actor” peddling “dangerous misinformation”.

Letting private entities whose platforms have huge influence on society decide what is “misinformation” coming from “bad actors” has proven to be a very scary proposition.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#355

Post by [deleted] »

spookthesunset wrote: post #354
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves. Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for themselves. Not sure how that is unethical.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a “bad actor”? Sounds an awful lot like “dangerous misinformation”. And based on the last three years “dangerous misinformation” quite often means “information that goes against my narrative” It’s a slippery slope letting private or even public entities define “bad actors” or “misinformation”. And it isn’t even a hypothetical… plenty of factually true information about covid got yo…

[deleted]

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#356

Post by cubefox »

riversflow wrote: post #335
cubefox wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Top AI researchers like Geoffrey Hinton say that large language models likely have an internal world model and aren't just stochastic parrots. Which means they can do more than just repeating strings from the training distribution. Facilities are a major hurdle for nuclear weapons. For bioweapons they are much less of a problem. The main constraint is competency.

They have no way to test that model though. > The main constraint is competency. Oh right, anyone can be a chemist, it requires no skill, that why labs aren't a core part of the course work. Ai researchers are really good at telling other fields their work, that they have no experience in, is easy.

Kevin Esvelt very much has experience. I posted a link to his Wikipedia page.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#357

Post by spookthesunset »

intelVISA wrote: post #325
MicolashKyoka wrote: post #318

AI safety is just a rent seeking cult/circus, leeching on the work done by others. Good on Meta for cleaning shop.

AI safety (theatre). Doubles as a makeshift moat. To me, the greatest apocalypse scenario is not some AGI global extinction event but a corporation with an extensive data hoard replete with ample ML and GPU power being able to monopolize a useful service that cannot be matched by the public... that is the true, (and likely imo) AI nightmare we're heading towards.

To me the biggest threat is using AI to make decisions with no human recourse. Do you want ChatGPT to be the sole judge deciding if you can get a mortgage or what interest rate it should be? Do you want ChatGPT to auto-delete your YouTube video with zero recourse or appeal process?

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#358

Post by a_w »

riversflow wrote: post #349
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. I don't agree with Eliezer on everything, and I often find him obnoxious personally, but being obnoxious isn't the same as being wrong. In general I think it's worth listening to people you disagree with and picking out the good parts of what they have to say. In any case, the broader point is that there are a lot of people concerned with AI r…

> If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. Sure. The premise that a super intelligent AI can create runaway intelligence on its own is completely insane. How can it iterate? How does it test? Humans run off consensus. We make predictions and test them against physical reality, then have others test them. Information has to be gathered and verified, it's the only rational way to build…

> How can it iterate? How does it test?

Honest/dumb question - does it need to test? In nature mutations don't test - the 'useful' mutations win.

Couldn't a 'super intelligent AI' do the same?

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#359

Post by tticvs »

ben_w wrote: post #348
tticvs wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not see the massive contradiction in your view that "we should build a world where secrecy doesn't matter" and "we need to make sure that LLMs keep secrets?"

I don't think I could've been more explicit, as I just said that secrecy is simultaneously necessary for, and an existential threat to, the world we currently have.

Hence training an LLM to keep secrets (your apparent practical definition of safety) is as much of an existential risk as not doing it at all?

Your position makes no sense, and your arguments are all based on basically false data.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#360

Post by [deleted] »

tyrfing wrote: post #302
criley2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that any for-profit company can self-govern without external accountability is also magical thinking A "Responsible AI Team" at a for-profit was always marketing (sleight of hand) to manipulate users. Just see OpenAI today: safety vs profit, who wins?

> Just see OpenAI today: safety vs profit, who wins? Safety pretty clearly won the board fight. OpenAI started the year with 9 board members, and end it with 4, 4 of the 5 who left being interested in commercialization. Half of the current board members are also on the board of GovAI, dedicated to AI safety. Don't forget that many people would consider "responsible AI" to mean "no AI until X-risk is zero", and that a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN