“… most important technical problem of our time.”
This is the dangers of letting the EAs run too far, they miss the forest for the trees but claim they see the planet.
Safe Superintelligence Inc.
551–560 of 1001 posts
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#552How can they speak of Safety when they are based partly in a colonialist settler entity that is committing a genocide and wanting to exterminate the indigenous population to make room for the Greater Zionist State.
I don't do business with Israeli companies while Israel is engaged in mass Extermination of a human population they treat as dogs.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#553Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#554> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…
To a technoutopian, scientific advances, and AI in particular, will one day solve all other human problems, create heaven on earth, and may even grant us eternal life. It's the most important problem in the same way that Christ's second coming is important in the Christian religion.
I had a very smart tech person tell me at a scientific conference a few weeks ago, when I asked "why do we want to create AGI in the first place", that AGI could solve a host of human problems, including poverty, hunger. Basically, utopia.
I was quite surprised at the naiveté of the answer given that many of these seemingly intractable problems, such as poverty, are social and political in nature and not ones that will be solved with technology.
Update: Even say a super AI was able to figure out something like cold fusion thereby "solving" the energy problem. There are so many trillions of dollars of vested interests stacked against "free clean energy for all" that it would be very very difficult for it to ever see the light of day. We can't even wean ourselves off coal for crying out loud.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#555I would like to be more forgiving than I am, but I struggle to forget abhorrent behavior.
Daniel Gross is the guy who was tricking kids into selling a percent of all their future work for a few thousand dollar 'do whatever you want and work on your passion "grant"', it was called Pioneer and was akin to indentured servitude, i.e. slavery.
So color me skeptical if Mr. Enslave the Kids is going to be involved in anything that's really good for anyone but himself.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#556> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…
You don't need to survey every problem to feel some problem might be the most important one. If you think AGI/ASI is coming soon and extinction risks are high, you don't really need to order to see it's the most important problem.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#557Not to be too pessimistic here, but why are we talking about things like this? I get that it’s a fun thing to think about, what we will do when a great artificial superintelligence is achieved and how we deal with it, feels like we’re living in a science fiction book. But, all we’ve achieved at this point is making a glorified token predicting machine trained on existing data (made by humans), not really being able t…
> Not to be too pessimistic here, but why are we talking about things like this
I also think that we merely got a very well compressed knowledge base, therefore we are far from super intelligence, and so-called safety sounds more Orwellian than having any real value. That said, I think we should take the literal meaning of what Ilya says. His goal is to build a super intelligence. Given that, albeit a lofty goal, SSI has to put safety in place. So, there, safe super intelligence
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#558Not to be too pessimistic here, but why are we talking about things like this? I get that it’s a fun thing to think about, what we will do when a great artificial superintelligence is achieved and how we deal with it, feels like we’re living in a science fiction book. But, all we’ve achieved at this point is making a glorified token predicting machine trained on existing data (made by humans), not really being able t…
Well, an entire industry of researchers, which used to be divided, is now uniting around calls to slow development and emphasize safety (like, “dissolve companies” emphasis not “write employee handbooks” emphasis). They’re saying, more-or-less in unison, that GPT3 was an unexpected breakthrough in the Frame Problem, based on Judea Pearl’s prescient predictions. If we agree on that, there are two options: 1. They’ve a…
Are they actually united? Or is this the ai safety subfaction circling the wagons due to waning relevance in the face of not-actually-all-that-threatening ai?
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#559As 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…
Even without business incentives, the military advantages of AI would inventivize governments to develop it anyway, like they did with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are inherently unsafe, there are some safeguards around them, but they are ultimately dangerous weapons.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#560Not to be too pessimistic here, but why are we talking about things like this? I get that it’s a fun thing to think about, what we will do when a great artificial superintelligence is achieved and how we deal with it, feels like we’re living in a science fiction book. But, all we’ve achieved at this point is making a glorified token predicting machine trained on existing data (made by humans), not really being able t…
> Not to be too pessimistic here, but why are we talking about things like this I also think that we merely got a very well compressed knowledge base, therefore we are far from super intelligence, and so-called safety sounds more Orwellian than having any real value. That said, I think we should take the literal meaning of what Ilya says. His goal is to build a super intelligence. Given that, albeit a lofty goal, SSI…
An underappreciated feature of a classical knowledge base is returning “no results” when appropriate. LLMs so far arguably fall short on that metric, and I’m not sure whether that’s possibly an inherent limitation.
So out of all potential applications with current-day LLMs, I’m really not sure this is a particularly good one.
Maybe this is fixable if we can train them to cite their sources more consistently, in a way that lets us double check the output?