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

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

ssi.inc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#431

Post by TeeWEE »

TeeWEE wrote: post #428
gibsonf1 wrote: post #59

Given that GenAI is a statistical approach from which intelligence does not emerge as ample experience proves, does this new company plan to take a more human approach to simulating intelligence instead?

Lossy compression of all world information results in super intelligence.... Thats the whole eureka thing to understand... To compress well, you need to understand. To predict the next word, you need to undestand the world. Ilya explains it here: https://youtu.be/GI4Tpi48DlA?t=1053

Also to support this: Biological systems are often very simple systems but repeated a lot... The brain is a lot of neurons... Apparently having a neural net (even small) predicts the future better... And that increased survival..

To survive is to predict the future better than the other animal. Survival of the fittest.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#433

Post by wyager »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #412
crowcroft wrote: post #383

As others have pointed out, it's the business incentives that create unsafe AI, and this doesn't solve that. Social media recommendation algorithms are already incredibly unsafe for society and young people (girls in particular [1]). When negative externalities exist, government should create regulation that appropriately accounts for that cost. I understand there's a bit of a paradigm shift and new attack vectors wi…

I mean if the last 20 years is to be taken as evidence, it seems big tech is more than happy to shotgun unproven and unstudied technology straight into the brains of our most vulnerable populations and just see what the fuck happens. Results so far include a lot of benign nothing but also a whole lot of eating disorders, maxed out parents credit cards, attention issues, rampant misogyny among young boys, etc. Which,…

Blaming the internet for misogyny is kind of bizarre, given that current levels of misogyny are within a couple points of all-time historical lows. The internet was invented ~40 years ago. Women started getting vote ~100 years ago. Do you think the internet has returned us to pre-women's-suffrage levels of misogyny?

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#434

Post by tarsinge »

waihtis wrote: post #259
tarsinge wrote: post #214

I'm still unconvinced safety is a concern at the model level. Any software wrongly used can be dangerous, e.g. Therac-25, 737 MAX, Fujitsu UK Post scandal... Also maybe I spent too much time in the cryptocurrency space but it doesn't help prefix "Safe" has been associated with scams like SafeMoon.

Safety is just enforcing political correctness in the AI outputs. Any actual examples of real world events we need to avoid are ridiculous scenarios like being eaten by nanobots (yes, this is an actual example by Yud)

What does political correctness means for the output of a self driving car system or a code completion tool? This is a concern only if you make a public chat service branded as an all knowing assistant. And you can have world threatening scenarii by directly plugging basic automations to nuclear warheads without human oversight.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#435

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

tomrod wrote: post #367
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A super intelligence probably won't need to hack into our systems. It will probably just hack us in some way, with subtle manipulations that seem to be to our benefit.

I disagree. If it could hack a small system and engineer our demise through a gray goo or hacked virus, that's really just universal paperclipping us as a resource. But again, the level of _extrapolation_ required here is not possible with current systems, which can only interpolate.

Well,we are talking about super intelligence, not current systems.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#436

Post by akira2501 »

crowcroft wrote: post #383

As others have pointed out, it's the business incentives that create unsafe AI, and this doesn't solve that. Social media recommendation algorithms are already incredibly unsafe for society and young people (girls in particular [1]). When negative externalities exist, government should create regulation that appropriately accounts for that cost. I understand there's a bit of a paradigm shift and new attack vectors wi…

> for society and young people (girls in particular [1]).

I don't think the article with a single focused example bears that out at all.

From the article:

> "Even more troubling are the men who signed up for paid subscriptions after the girl launched a program for super-fans receive special photos and other content."

> "Her mom conceded that those followers are “probably the scariest ones of all.”"

I'm sorry.. but what is your daughter selling, exactly? And why is social media responsible for this outcome? And how is this "unsafe for society?"

This just sounds like horrific profit motivated parenting enabled by social media.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#437

Post by cwillu »

joshuahaglund wrote: post #422
cwillu wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk , signed by Ilya Sutskever among others.

I clicked, hoping that "human extinction" was just the worst thing they were against. But that's the only thing. That leaves open a whole lot of bad stuff that they're OK with AI doing (as long as it doesn't kill literally everyone).

That's like saying a bus driver is okay with violence on his bus because he has signed a statement against dangerous driving.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#438

Post by hindsightbias »

aristofun wrote: post #388

What a waste of an intelligence. Pursuing artificial goal to solve a non existent problem to profit off meaningless hype around it. World would have been better off if he made a decent alternative to k8s or invested his skills into curing cancer or at least protecting world from totalitarian governments and dangerous ideologies (if he wants to belong to vague generic cause). You know, real problems, like the ones peo…

There's always a bigger bubble. But now we're talking to infinity and beyond.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#439

Post by cheptsov »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #285

Ilya's issue isn't developing a Safe AI. Its developing a Safe Business. You can make a safe AI today, but what happens when the next person is managing things? Are they so kindhearted, or are they cold and calculated like the management of many harmful industries today? If you solve the issue of Safe Business and eliminate the incentive structures that lead to 'unsafe' business, you basically obviate a lot of the so…

I'd love to see more individual researchers openly exploring AI safety from a scientific and humanitarian perspective, rather than just the technical or commercial angles.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#440

Post by protomolecule »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #173
cool-RR wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, true safe super intelligence could only be developed in countries that finished genociding their indigenous populations centuries ago.

Maybe it takes a nation (tragically) built on genocide and slavery to be able to recognize (and thus prevent) the same in an AI.

And Nazis were destined to build safe atomic bomb.
Post reply on HN