Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the new industry is inherently unsafe, it is better to be proactive.
Even if I agreed in general I would not be sure about this case.
Yeah, this specific law sounds like not great law.
Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
471–480 of 514 posts
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A model 100 times larger than the current available that's just sending output into /dev/null is completely harmless. That's certainly a hypothesis. What level of confidence should be required of that hypothesis before risking all of humanity on it? Who should get to evaluate that confidence level and make that decision? One way of looking at this: If a million smart humans, thinking a million times faster, with ac…
> That's certainly a hypothesis. What level of confidence should be required of that hypothesis before risking all of humanity on it? Who should get to evaluate that confidence level and make that decision? We can have complete confidence because we know how LLMs work under the hood, what operations they execute. Which isn't much. There's just a lot of them. > One way of looking at this: If a million smart humans, th…
> ChatGPT isn't plotting your demise in between requests.
I never suggested it was doing anything between requests. Nothing stops an LLM from evaluating other goals during requests, and using that to inform its output.
Quite a few people have just hooked two LLMs (the same or different models) up to each other to start talking, and left them running for a long time.
Others hook LLMs up to run shell commands. Still others hook LLMs up to make automated pull requests to git repositories that have CI setups running arbitrary commands.
> Also, LLMs don't think.
Current generation LLMs do, in fact, do a great deal of thinking while computing requests, by many definitions of "thinking".
> If you're not asking it to do anything, it's not doing anything.
And if you are asking it to do something, it can do a lot of computation while purporting to do what you ask it to do.
> No. LLMs don't execute arbitrary code. They execute a whole lot of matrix multiplications.
Many current models have been fairly directly connected to the ability to run code or API requests, and that's just taking into account the public ones.
Even at the matrix multiplication level, chips can have flaws. Not just at the instruction or math-operation level, but at the circuit design level. And many current LLMs are trained on the same chips they're run on.
But in any case, given the myriad AIs hooked up fairly directly to much more powerful systems and capabilities, it hardly seems necessary for any AIs to break out of /dev/null or a pure text channel; the more likely path to abrupt AGI is some AI that's been hooked up to a wide variety of capabilities.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> He's just planning for a post-governor career. After this year, many democrats are as well - which is why Harris had such a hard time finding a VP and took Walz who was like the last kid you pick on your dodgeball team. The presidential race in 2028 for the Democrats is going to have one of the deepest benches for talent I've seen in a long time. Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure. But I ag…
> Newsom and Shapiro will be at the top of the list for sure. Neither has genuine appeal. Shapiro is a really, really poor speaker and has few credentials except as a moderate. Newsom is the definition of coastal elite. Both have spoken, neither have been heard.
Oops, I had mixed up Shapiro with Gretchen Whitmer (another of these "rising stars"). Shapiro just does white Obama.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
What?
“But the big guys are struggling getting past 100KB, so ‘think of the small guys’ doesn’t make sense when the limit is 640KB.” How do people on a computer technology forum ignore the 10,000x improvement in computers over 30 years due to advances in computer technology? I could understand why politicians don’t get it. I should think that computer systems companies would be up in arms over SB 1047 in the same way they…
Moore's law is dead though.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said, supporters included wary copyright holders and the bottom-market also-rans like Musk. If your model is barely holding up against Llama, what's the point of staying in.
And two of the three godfathers of AI, and all of the AI notkillaboutism crowd. Actually, wait, if Grok is losing to GPT, why would Musk care about Llama more than Altman? Llama hurts his competitor...
He can't compete with Anthropic and OpenAI because their models are much better. Llama is the competitor with the capability closest to Grok.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#476I am disappointed that there are no climate change regulations on AI models. Large scale ML businesses are massive carbon emitters, not counting the whimsical training of NNs by every other IT person. This needs to be regulated.
California already has cap and trade. There doesn't seem to be a need for further regulation. If there's a problem with emissions, adjust the pricing. That's the purpose of cap and trade.
That’s just bad faith reshuffling of “ownership” and does not address the massive carbon emissions produced by the large scale NN industry. It is going to get worse.
Not a good look for a group of people otherwise obsessed with climate change.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#477The race for true AI is on and the fruits are the economic marginalization of humanity. No game theoretic actor in the running will shy away from the race. Anyone who claims they will for the 'good of humanity' is lying or was never a contender. This is information technology we are talking about, it's virtually the exact opposite of nuclear weapons. Refining uranium vs. manufacturing multi purpose silicon and guzzli…
I agree with the analysis though LLMs might not be the specific tech that makes it.
I think the truly humanity-respecting solution is to figure out and implement a stable and fair-er 50% post-labor society before we actually get there. UBI (not the unmanaged flash layer) sounds like one part of the solution.
Trying to preserve employment is demonstrably wrong when already today there are too few unskilled jobs that make economic sense for the large amount of humans unable to learn more complex tasks.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's certainly a hypothesis. What level of confidence should be required of that hypothesis before risking all of humanity on it? Who should get to evaluate that confidence level and make that decision? We can have complete confidence because we know how LLMs work under the hood, what operations they execute. Which isn't much. There's just a lot of them. > One way of looking at this: If a million smart humans, th…
> ChatGPT isn't plotting your demise in between requests. I never suggested it was doing anything between requests. Nothing stops an LLM from evaluating other goals during requests, and using that to inform its output. Quite a few people have just hooked two LLMs (the same or different models) up to each other to start talking, and left them running for a long time. Others hook LLMs up to run shell commands. Still ot…
So you're admitting that an AGI that pipes into /dev/null is harmless even if given the directive to destroy humanity?
The danger is in what they're hooked up to, not the containerized math that happens inside the model.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This race may even be the answer to the Fermi paradox The mostly unchallenged popular notion that fleshy human intelligence will still be running the show 100s – let alone 1000s – of years from now is very naive. We're nearing the end of the human supremacy, though most of us won't live to see that end.
To be fair fleshy human intelligence has hardly been running the show any more than a bear eating a salmon out of a river thus far. We’d like to consider we can control the world yet any data scientist will tell you what we actually control and understand is very little, or at best a sweeping oversimplification of this complex world.
> has hardly been running the show any more than a bear eating a salmon out of a river thus far
Exactly. We're on an super-linear growth curve. Looking at the earth on a timescale since biological life emerged, it would seem that intelligent squishy life appeared for a split second and then an entirely artificial intelligent life took over from then on.
Re: Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047
#480I’m so sick of people Restricting freedoms and access to knowledge in the name safety. Tyranny always comes in the form of it’s for your own good/safety
Sure, why we just not let everyone to build nukes and use them on anyone they don't like? Knowledge is the power. The BEST power you can get.
Big difference between allowing everyone build nukes and allowing everyone to share the information necessary to build nukes.