Live data from Hacker News

Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

commerce.gov

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#41

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…

You write it like there is litteraly 0 risk. Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Edit : Totally agree with qualifiedai's edit

Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible without AI too?

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#42
"Despite the increasing complexity and capabilities of machine learning models, they still lack what is commonly understood as "agency." They don't have desires, intentions, or the ability to form goals. They operate under a fixed set of rules or algorithms and don't "want" anything.

Even in feedback loop systems where a model might "learn" from the outcomes of its actions, this learning is typically constrained by the objectives set by human operators. The model itself doesn't have the ability to decide what it wants to learn or how it wants to act; it's merely optimizing for a function that was determined by its creators.

Furthermore, any tendency to "meander and drift outside the scope of their original objective" would generally be considered a bug rather than a feature indicative of agency. Such behavior usually implies that the system is not performing as intended and needs to be corrected or constrained.

In summary, while machine learning models are becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable, they do not possess agency in the way living organisms do. Their actions are a result of algorithms and programming, not independent thought or desire. As a result, questions about their "autonomy" are often less about the models themselves developing agency and more about the ethical and practical implications of the tasks we delegate to them."

The above is from the horse's mouth (ChatGPT4)

My commentary:

We have yet to achieve the kind of agency a jelly fish has, which operates with a nervous system comprised of roughly 10K neurons (vs 100B in humans) and no such thing as a brain. We have not yet been able to replicate the Agency present in a simple nervous system.

I would say even an Amoeba has more agency than a $1B+ OpenAI model since the Amoeba can feed itself and grow in numbers far more successfully and sustainably in the wild with all the unpredictability in its environment than an OpenAI based AI Agent, which ends up stuck in loops or derailed.

What is my point?

We're jumping the gun with these regulations. That's all I'm saying. Not that we should not keep an eye and have a healthy amount of concern and make sure we're on top of it, but we are clearly jumping the gun since we the AI agents so far are unable to compete with a jelly fish in open-ended survival mode (not to be confused with Minecraft survival mode) due to the AI's lack of agency (as a unitary agent and as a collective).

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Alright, you hooked me in. What are they?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194

That is not what is being discussed. Those things are already very illegal and we don't need new and novel ways to address them.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#44
post #42

"Despite the increasing complexity and capabilities of machine learning models, they still lack what is commonly understood as "agency." They don't have desires, intentions, or the ability to form goals. They operate under a fixed set of rules or algorithms and don't "want" anything. Even in feedback loop systems where a model might "learn" from the outcomes of its actions, this learning is typically constrained by t…

Is there a point buried in all that? You seem to be implying that there shouldn't be any regulatory body to address self-improving AI until it already exists? I don't think the government moves quickly enough for that to be okay.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#45

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…

You're worried about winning the race. I'm worried the prize is an accidental intelligence explosion killing everyone. A government slamming on their brakes would be the most encouraging thing I've heard all year.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scammers-ai-mimic-voices-loved-... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66983194

That is not what is being discussed. Those things are already very illegal and we don't need new and novel ways to address them.

That's exactly what's being discussed?

A dramatic reduction in cost and increase in effectiveness of some undesirable behavior is exactly when you should look for new ways to address it. The goal of making things illegal is to prevent their occurrence, and if they get suddenly much cheaper and more effective, then your prior methods of deterring them will no longer work.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#47

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…

[dead]

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#48
post #8

What a fucking joke. I am voting libertarian if i bother to vote at all. They're against AI regulation.

I lean libertarian but I'm very much in favor of AI regulation

That's normal. Most libertarians are very much in favour of regulation.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#49

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…

You write it like there is litteraly 0 risk. Are you aware there are some malicious deviations already possible with AI ? Edit : Totally agree with qualifiedai's edit

You need to argue two things:

1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated by AI (easy)

2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks (good luck)

When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.

Re: Establishment of the U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

#50

Let's shoot US innovation and leadership in the foot by establishing random limits on foundation model research. According to EO's guidelines on commpute, something like GPT4 probably falls under reporting guidelines. Also, in the last 10 years GPU compute capabilities grew 1000x. What will be happening even 2 or 5 years from now? Edit: yes, regulations are necessary but we should regulate applications of AI, not fun…

You're worried about winning the race. I'm worried the prize is an accidental intelligence explosion killing everyone. A government slamming on their brakes would be the most encouraging thing I've heard all year.

"Accidental intelligence explosion" - you have to provide a reasonable argument that this can happen. AIs we have now or currently under development are still just tools in the sense that all agency and consciousness comes solely from human operators. Of course, human operators can be malicious, which is why we should regulate applications of AI, not fundamental research in it.
Post reply on HN