Live data from Hacker News

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

ssi.inc

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#601
We might need Useful Superintelligence Inc. / USI before SSI?

Safety is an important area in R&D but the killer application is the integration of LLMs into existing workflows to make non technical users 100x-1000x more efficient. There's a lot of untapped potential there. The big successes will have a lot of impact on safety but it will probably come as a result of the wider adoption of these tools rather than the starting point.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#602

We might need Useful Superintelligence Inc. / USI before SSI? Safety is an important area in R&D but the killer application is the integration of LLMs into existing workflows to make non technical users 100x-1000x more efficient. There's a lot of untapped potential there. The big successes will have a lot of impact on safety but it will probably come as a result of the wider adoption of these tools rather than the st…

Lots of other companies / people working on that.

No one is really working on safety. So I can see why Ilya is taking on that challenge, and it explains why he left OpenAI.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#603
post #306
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their TC is now $900k As a community we should stop throwing numbers around like this when more than half of this number is speculative. You shouldn't be able to count it as "total compensation" unless you are compensated.

Word on town is OpenAI folks heavily selling shares in secondaries in 100s of millions. The number is as real as someone else is willing to pay for them. Plenty of VCs willing to pay for it.

> Word on town is OpenAI folks heavily selling shares in secondaries in 100s of millions

OpenAI heavily restricts the selling of its "shares," which tends to come with management picking the winners and losers among its ESOs. Heavily, heavily discount an asset you cannot liquidate without someone's position, particularly if that person is your employer.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#605

Not 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…

Too many people are extrapolating the curve to exponential when it could be a sigmoid. Lots of us got too excited and too invested in where "AI" was heading about ten years ago.

But that said, there are plenty of crappy, not-AGI technologies that deserve consideration. LLMs can still make for some very effective troll farms. GenAI can make some very convincing deepfakes. Drone swarms, even without AI, represent a new dimension of capabilities for armies, terrorist groups or lone wolves. Bioengineering is bringing custom organisms, prions or infectious agents within reach of individuals.

I wish someone in our slowly-ceasing-to-function US government was keeping a proper eye on these things.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#606
My naive prediction is there will be an extreme swing back into “reality” once everyone starts assuming the whole internet is just LLMs interacting with each other. Just like how there’s a shift towards private group chats, with trusted members only, rather than open forums.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#607

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…

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.

If someone really wanted to use nukes, they would have been used by now. What has protected us is not technology (in the aftermath of the USSR it wasn't that difficult to steal a nuke), but rather lack of incentives. A bad actor doesn't have much to gain by detonating a nuke (unless they're deranged and want to see people die for the pleasure of it). OK, you could use it as blackmail, which North Korea essentially tried, but that only got them so far. Whereas a super AI could potentially be used for great personal gain, i.e., to gain extreme wealth and power.

So there's much greater chance of misuse of a "Super AI" than nuclear weapons.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can make a safe AI today, but what happens when the next person is managing things? The point of safe superintelligence , and presumably the goal of SSI Inc., is that there won't be a next (biological) person managing things afterwards. At least none who could do anything to build a competing unsafe SAI. We're not talking about the banal definition of "safety" here. If the first superintelligence has any reason…

I wonder how many people panicking about these things have ever visited a data centre. They have big red buttons at the end of every pod. Shuts everything down. They have bigger red buttons at the end of every power unit. Shuts everything down. And down at the city, there’s a big red button at the biggest power unit. Shuts everything down. Having arms and legs is going to be a significant benefit for some time yet. I…

> Having arms and legs is going to be a significant benefit for some time yet

I am also of this opinion.

However I also think that the magic shutdown button needs to be protected against terrorists and ne'er-do-wells, so is consequently guarded by arms and legs that belong to a power structure.

If the shutdown-worthy activity of the evil AI can serve the interests of the power structure preferentially, those arms and legs will also be motivated to prevent the rest of us from intervening.

So I don't worry about AI at all. I do worry about humans, and if AI is an amplifier or enabler of human nature, then there is valid worry, I think.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#609
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that a safe super intelligence would help solve those problems. I am skeptical because the vast majority are social coordination problems, and I don’t see how a machine intelligence no matter how smart can help with that.

So instead of a super intelligence either killing us all or saving us from ourselves, we’ll just have one that can be controlled to extract more wealth from us.

IMO, this is the most likely outcome

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#610
post #468

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…

Nice absolute certainty you have there.

Has anyone got a good widely agreed definition of intelligence already?

Or at least hi quality and hi resolution understanding of what it is?

How can you really achieve (super|artificial|puper|duper)-intelligence then?

If not in your dreams and manipulated shareholders' expectations...

Until then yep, I'm quite certain we have a clear case of a naked king here.

Post reply on HN