I wonder which non-profit will be looted next.
Evolving OpenAI's Structure
571–580 of 746 posts
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Progress of technology should not be artitrarily held back to protect automateable jobs though. We need to adapt. So you don't mind if your economic value drops to zero, with all human labour replaced by machines? Dependent on UBI, existing in a basic pod, eating rations of slop.
> So you don't mind if your economic value drops to zero, with all human labour replaced by machines? This was the fear when the cotton gin was invented. It was the ear when cars were created. The same complaint happened with the introduction of electronic, automated, telephone switchboards. Jobs change. Societies change. Unemployment worldwide, is near the lowest it has ever been. Work will change. Society will even…
Where did all the work-horses go? Why is there barely a fraction of the population there once was? Why did they not adapt and find niches where they had a competitive advantage over cars and machines?
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#573It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…
> At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output.
It was true before we allowed them to access external systems, disregarding certain rule which I forgot the origin.
The more general problem is a mix between the tradegy of the common; we have better understanding every passing day yet still don't understand exacly why LLM perform that well emergently instead of engineered that way; and future progress.
Do you think you can find a way around access boundaries to masquerade your Create/Update requests as Read in the log system monitoring it, when you have super intelligence?
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who defines "value-aligned, safety-conscious project"? "Instead of our current complex non-competing structure—which made sense when it looked like there might be one dominant AGI effort but doesn’t in a world of many great AGI companies—we are moving to a normal competing structure where ..." is all it takes
Most likely the same people who define "all natural chicken" - the company that creates the term.
I actually lol-ed at that. It's like asking the inventor of a religion who goes to heaven.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing OpenAI is doing, or ever has done, has been close to AGI.
I agree with you I wonder, do you have a hypothesis as to what would be a measurement that would differentiate AGI vs Not-AGI?
Differentiating between AGI and non-AGI, if we ever get remotely close, would be challenging, but for now it's trivial. The defining feature of AGI is recursive self improvement across any field. Without self improvement, you're just regurgitating. Humanity started with no advanced knowledge or even a language. In what should practically be a heartbeat at the speed of distributed computing with perfect memory and computation power, we were landing a man on the Moon.
So one fundamental difference is that AGI would not need some absurdly massive data dump to become intelligent. In fact you would prefer to feed it as minimal a series of the most primitive first principles as possible because it's certain that much of what we think is true is going to end up being not quite so -- the same as for humanity at any other given moment in time.
We could derive more basic principles, but this one is fundamental and already completely incompatible with our current direction. Right now we're trying to essentially train on the entire corpus of human writing. That is a defacto acknowledgement that the absolute endgame for current tech is simple mimicry, mistakes and all. It'd create a facsimile of impressive intelligence because no human would have a remotely comparable knowledge base, but it'd basically just be a glorified natural language search engine - frozen in time.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…
Which of these statements do you disagree with? - Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity - Predicting the future is famously difficult - Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence - Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we shoul…
[dead]
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…
Which of these statements do you disagree with? - Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity - Predicting the future is famously difficult - Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence - Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we shoul…
Isn't the question you're posing basically Pascals wager?
I think the chance they're going to create a "superintelligence" is extremely small. That said I'm sure we're going to have a lot of useful intelligence. But nothing general or self-conscious or powerful enough to be threatening for many decades or even ever.
> Predicting the future is famously difficult
That's very true, but that fact unfortunately can never be used to motivate any particular action, because you can always say "what if the real threat comes from a different direction?"
We can come up with hundreds of doomsday scenarios, most don't involve AI. Acting to minimize the risk of every doomsday scenario (no matter how implausible) is doomsday scenario no. 153.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…
Which of these statements do you disagree with? - Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity - Predicting the future is famously difficult - Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence - Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we shoul…
You bring up the example of an extinction-level asteroid hurling toward earth. Gee, I wonder if this superintelligence you’re deathly afraid of could help with that?
This extreme risk aversion and focus on negative outcomes is just the result of certain personality types, no amount of rationalizing will change your mind as you fundamentally fear the unknown.
How do you get out of bed everyday knowing there’s a chance you could get hit by a bus?
If your tribe invented fire you’d be the one arguing how we can’t use it for fear it might engulf the world. Yes, humans do risk starting wildfires, but it’s near impossible to argue the discovery of fire wasn’t a net good.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
to me it sounds like an admission that AGI is bullshit! AGI would be so disruptive to the current economic regime that "winner takes all" barely covers it, I think. Admitting they will be in normal competition with other AI companies implies specializations and niches to compete, which means Artificial Specialized Intelligence, NOT general intelligence! and that makes complete sense if you don't have a lay person's u…
AGI is matter of when, not if. It will likely require research breakthroughs, significant hardware advancement, and anything from a few years to a few decades. But it's coming. ChatGPT was released 2.5 years ago, and look at all the crazy progress that has been made in that time. That doesn't mean that the progress has to continue, we'll probably see a stall. But AIs that are on a level with humans for many common ta…
> AGI is matter of when, not if.
I want to believe, man.
Re: Evolving OpenAI's Structure
#580It's somewhat odd to me that many companies operating in the public eye are basically stating "We are creating a digital god, an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" and raising billions to do it, and nobody bats an eye...
I'd really love to talk to someone that both really believes this to be true, and has a hands-on experience with building and using generative AI. The intersection of the two seems to be quite hard to find. At the state that we're in the AIs we're building are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli (e.g., a "prompt"). No stimuli, no output. This isn't a nuclear weapon. We're not going to ac…
> are just really useful input/output devices that respond to a stimuli
LLMs are huge pretrained models. The economic benefit here is that you don't have to train your own text classification model anymore. (The LLM was likely already trained on whatever training set you could think of.)
That's a big time and effort saver, but no different from "AI" that we had decades prior. It's just more accessible to the normal person now.