Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safe Superintelligence Inc.

ssi.inc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#641

Post by zombiwoof »

reissbaker wrote: post #577
chrisldgk wrote: post #473

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…

I'm pretty sure "Altman and company" don't have much to do with this — this is Ilya, who pretty famously tried to get Altman fired, and then himself left OpenAI in the aftermath. Ilya is a brilliant researcher who's contributed to many foundational parts of deep learning (including the original AlexNet); I would say I'm somewhat pessimistic based on the "safety" focus — I don't think LLMs are particularly dangerous,…

The word transformer nor LLM appear anywhere in their announcement

It’s like before the end of WWII the world sees the US as a military super power , and THEN we unleash the atomic bomb they didn’t even know about

That is Ilya. He has the tech. Sam had the corruption and the do anything power grab

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#642

Post by seanmcdirmid »

123yawaworht456 wrote: post #532
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The safe business won’t hold very long if someone can gain a short term business advantage with unsafe AI. Eventually government has to step in with a legal and enforcement framework to prevent greed from ruining things.

which government? will China obey US regoolations? will Russia?

No, which makes this an even harder problem. Can US companies bound by one set of rules compete against Chinese ones bound by another set of rules? No, probably not. Humanity will have to come together on this, or someone will develop killer AI that kills us all.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#643

Post by whimsicalism »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #503
wyager wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the internet for misogyny is kind of bizarre, given that current levels of misogyny are within a couple points of all-time historical lows. The internet was invented ~40 years ago. Women started getting vote ~100 years ago. Do you think the internet has returned us to pre-women's-suffrage levels of misogyny?

> Do you think the internet has returned us to pre-women's-suffrage levels of misogyny? Well in the States at least we did just revoke a sizable amount of their bodily autonomy so, the situation may not be that bad, yet, but I wouldn't call it good by any measurement. Any my objection isn't "that sexism exists in society," that is probably going to be true as a statement until the sun explodes, and possibly after tha…

I am firmly in favor of abortion rights but still I do not think that is even remotely a good bellwether to measure sexism/misogyny.

1. Women are more likely than men to be opposed to abortion rights. 2. Many people who are opposed to abortion rights have legitimately held moral concerns that are not simply because they have no respect for women's rights. 3. Roe v. Wade was the decision of 9 people. It absolutely did not reflect public opinion at the time - nothing even close to as expansive would possibly have passed in a referendum in 1974. Compare that to now, where multiple states that are known abortion holdouts have repealed abortion restrictions in referenda - and it is obvious that people are moving to the left on this issue compared to where we were in 1974.

Social media facilitates communication. As long as there is sexism and freedom of communication, there will be people making money off of facilitating sexist communication because there will be people making money off of facilitating communication writ large. It's like blaming a toll highway for facilitating someone trafficking drugs. They are also making money off of facilitating anti-sexist communication - and the world as a whole is becoming less sexist, partially in my view due to the spread of views facilitated by the internet.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#644

Post by insane_dreamer »

philwelch wrote: post #341
wffurr wrote: 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.

Social coordination problems exist within a specific set of constraints, and that set of constraints can itself be altered. For instance, climate change is often treated as a social coordination problem, but if you could produce enough energy cheaply enough, you could solve the greenhouse gas problem unilaterally.

OK, lets play this out.

Lets say an AI discovers cold fusion. Given the fact that it would threaten to render extinct one of the largest global economic sectors (oil/gas), how long do you think it would take for it to actually see the light of day? We can't even wean ourselves off coal.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#645

Post by [deleted] »

quesera wrote: post #618
stoniejohnson wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the common line of thinking here is that it won't be actively antagonist to , rather it will have goals that are orthogonal to ours. Since it is superintelligent, and we are not, it will achieve its goals and we will not be able to achieve ours. This is a big deal because a lot of our goals maintain the overall homeostasis of our species, which is delicate! If this doesn't make sense, here is an ungrounded, n…

I think this is the easiest kind of scenario to refute. The interface between a superintelligent AI and the physical world is a) optional, and b) tenuous. If people agree that creating weird concrete structures is not beneficial, the AI will be starved of the resources necessary to do so, even if it cannot be diverted. The challenge comes when these weird concrete structures are useful to a narrow group of people who…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#646

Post by zombiwoof »

zztop44 wrote: post #630
vineyardmike wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think LLMs are particularly dangerous “Everyone” who works in deep AI tech seems to constantly talk about the dangers. Either they’re aggrandizing themselves and their work, or they’re playing into sci-fi fear for attention or there is something the rest of us aren’t seeing. I’m personally very skeptical there is any real dangers today. If I’m wrong, I’d love to see evidence. Are foundation models before fi…

They reduce the marginal cost of producing plausible content to effectively zero. When combined with other societal and technological shifts, that makes them dangerous to a lot of things: healthy public discourse, a sense of shared reality, people’s jobs, etc etc But I agree that it’s not at all clear how we get from ChatGPT to the fabled paperclip demon.

We are forgetting the visual element

The text alone doesn’t do it but add some generated and nearly perfect “spokesperson” that is uniquely crafted to a persons own ideals and values, that then sends you a video message with that marketing .

We will all be brainwashed zombies

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#647

Post by jimkleiber »

Yoric wrote: post #600
reissbaker wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure "Altman and company" don't have much to do with this — this is Ilya, who pretty famously tried to get Altman fired, and then himself left OpenAI in the aftermath. Ilya is a brilliant researcher who's contributed to many foundational parts of deep learning (including the original AlexNet); I would say I'm somewhat pessimistic based on the "safety" focus — I don't think LLMs are particularly dangerous,…

I actually feel that they can be very dangerous. Not because of the fabled AGI, but because 1. they're so good at showing the appearance of being right; 2. their results are actually quite unpredictable, not always in a funny way; 3. C-level executives actually believe that they work. Combine this with web APIs or effectors and this is a recipe for disaster.

I got into an argument with someone over text yesterday and the person said their argument was true because ChatGPT agreed with them and even sent the ChatGPT output to me.

Just for an example of your danger #1 above. We used to say that the internet always agrees with us, but with Google it was a little harder. ChatGPT can make it so much easier to find agreeing rationalizations.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#648

Post by TaylorAlexander »

zombiwoof wrote: post #638
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are we talking about things like this? > this is such a transparent attention grab (and, by extension, money grab by being overvalued by investors and shareholders) Ilya believes transformers can be enough to achieve superintelligence (if inefficiently). He is concerned that companies like OpenAI are going to succeed at doing it without investing in safety, and they're going to unleash a demon in the process. I…

Ilya has never said transformers are the end all be all

Sure but I didn’t claim he said that. What I did say is correct. Here’s him saying transformers are enough to achieve AGI in a short video clip: https://youtu.be/kW0SLbtGMcg

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#649

Post by blueboo »

chrisldgk wrote: post #473

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…

it's intellectual ego catnip. https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#650

Post by nathanasmith »

therobots927 wrote: post #575
cjk2 wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a miserable cynic at a much higher level. This is top level grifting. And I’ve made a shit ton of money out of it. That’s as far as reality goes.

lol same. Are you selling yet?

When QQQ and SMH close under the 200 day moving average I'll sell my TQQQ and SOXL repectively. Until then, party on! It's been a wild ride.
Post reply on HN