More and more I have just come to accept that the majority of people, at least those I am exposed to in the US, don't fundamentally believe in anything. Everyt conviction has a buyout price.
Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
551–560 of 716 posts
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There's no stopping it at this point" - Sure there is, if a handful of enormous datacenters pull the very large plugs (or if their shaky finances collapse), the dubiously intelligent machines will be turned off. They're not ultraintelligent yet. Stopping it merely requires convincing a relatively small number of people to act morally rather than greedily. Maybe you think that's impossible because those particular pe…
Do you really think AI companies/researchers are motivated by greed? It doesn't seem that way to me at all . Stopping AI would be immoral; it has the potential to supercharge technology and productivity, which would massively benefit humanity. Yes there are risks, which have to be managed.
> Do you really think AI companies/researchers are motivated by greed?
Researchers, maybe not. Companies, absolutely yes.
I don’t see how you could assume the likes of Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and even Anthropic with all their virtue signaling (for lack of a better term) are motivated by anything other than greed.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#553Anthropic's CEO Dario has annoyed me to no end with his "AI will take all the jobs in 6 months" doomer speeches on every podcast he graces his presence with.
It makes me wonder why he has the job of CEO then if he's so confident that the technology will destroy the world.
Don't worry, I know exactly why. $
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#554Anthropic's CEO Dario has annoyed me to no end with his "AI will take all the jobs in 6 months" doomer speeches on every podcast he graces his presence with.
He's annoyed me most with the way he speaks. I'm not sure if its a tick or what but the way he'll repeat a word 10x before starting a sentence is painful to listen to.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#555Hopefully this is the short-term move made only under duress so that they can file a lawsuit.
It's not like the regime they operate under care much about the courts. Legally they're also obliged to let the state into pretty much every crevice in their operations.
No, they aren't. No company has to cave to government pressure to do (or not do) something until there is a legitimate court order. Our companies are just spineless bootlickers and have been capitulating voluntarily and enthusiastically.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#556Anthropic's CEO Dario has annoyed me to no end with his "AI will take all the jobs in 6 months" doomer speeches on every podcast he graces his presence with.
What I find so funny about heads of AI companies coming out saying things like this, is their own career pages suggest they don't actually feel that way.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because it is. AI is powerful and AI is perilous. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Those follow directly from the same premise. If AI tech goes very well, it can be the greatest invention of all human history. If AI tech goes very poorly, it can be the end of human history.
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent m…
Should then the powers that are developing AGI enter an analogue to the SALT treaties but this time governing AGI do things don’t go off the rails?
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent m…
"There's no stopping it at this point" - Sure there is, if a handful of enormous datacenters pull the very large plugs (or if their shaky finances collapse), the dubiously intelligent machines will be turned off. They're not ultraintelligent yet. Stopping it merely requires convincing a relatively small number of people to act morally rather than greedily. Maybe you think that's impossible because those particular pe…
right, because turning off any number of data centers is going to do anything at all but create massive pressure on researching the efficiency and effectiveness of the models.
There are already designs that do not require massive data centers (or even a particularly good smart phone) to outperform average humans in average tasks.
All you'd accomplish by hobbling the data centers is slow the growth of sloppy models that do vastly more compute than is actually required and encourage the growth of models that travel rather directly from problem to solution.
And, now that I'm typing about it, consider this: The largest computational projects ever in the history of the world did not occur in 1/2/5/10 data centers. Modern projects occur across a vast and growing number of smaller data centers. Shit, a large portion of Netflix and Youtube edge clusters are just a rack or a few racks installed in a pre-existing infrastructure.
I know that the current design of AI focusses on raw time to token and time to response, but consider an AGI that doesn't need to think quickly because it's everywhere all at once. Scrappy botnets often clobber large sophisticated networks. WHy couldn't that be true of a distributed AI especially now that we know that larger models can train cheaper models? A single central model on a few racks could discover truths and roll out intelligence updates to it's end nodes that do the raw processing. This is actually even more realistic for a dystopia. Even the single evil AI in the one data center is going to develop viral infection to control resources that it would not typically have access to and thereby increase it's power beyond it's own existing original physical infrastructure.
quick edit to add: At it's peak Folding@Home was utilizing 2.4 EXAflops worth of silicon. At that moment that one single distributed computational project had more compute than easily the top 100 data centers at the time. Let that sink in: The first exa-scale compute was achieved with smartphones, PS3s, and clunky old HP laptops; not a "hyperscaler"
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#559Worth checking this post from someone who actually has worked on this change: > I take significant responsibility for this change. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HzKuzrKfaDJvQqmjh/responsibl...
Did this guy actually write this? Incredibly long and verbose. I will fall short of accusing him of using an AI to generate slop, but whatever happened to people's ability to make short, strong, simple arguments? If you can't communicate the essence of an argument in a short and simple way, you probably don't understand it in great depth, and clearly don't care about actually convincing anybody because Lord knows nob…
This style is in vogue for the less wrong community.
Re: Anthropic drops flagship safety pledge
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
John Good's quote is pretty myopic, it assumes machines make better machines based on being "ultraintelligent" instead of learning from environment-action-outcome loop. It's the difference between "compute is all you need" and "compute+explorative feedback" is all you need. As if science and engineering comes from genius brains not from careful experiments.
At sufficient levels of intelligence, one can increasingly substitute it for the other things. Intelligence can be the difference between having to build 20 prototypes and building one that works first try, or having to run a series of 50 experiments and nailing it down with 5. The upper limit of human intelligence doesn't go high enough for something like "a man has designed an entire 5th gen fighter jet in his mind…
Exceedingly elaborate, internally-consistent mind constructs, untested against the real world, sounds like a good definition of schizophrenia. May or may not correlate with high intelligence.