651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at Sam Altman's career and tweets. He's a clown at best, and at worst he's a manipulative crook who only cares about his own enrichment and uses pro-social ideas to give himself a veneer of trustworthiness.
Well, more than 90% of OpenAI employees backed him up when the board fired him. Maybe he's not the clown you claim he is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> catastrophic global warming and climate change will happen before we get AGI, What are your timelines here? "Catastrophic" is vague but I'd put the climate change meaningfully affecting the quality of life of average westerner at end of century, while AGI could be before the middle of the century.
It's meaningfully affecting people today near the equator. Look at the April 2024 heatwave in South Asia. These will continue to get worse and more frequent. Millions of these people can't afford air conditioning.
Weather is not climate, as everyone is so careful to point out during cold waves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think superalignment is absurd, and model "safety" is the modern AI company's "think of the children" pearl clutching pretext to justify digging moats. All this after sucking up everyone's copyright material as fair use, then not releasing the result, and profiting off it. All due respect to Jan here, though. He's being (perhaps dangerously) honest, genuinely believes in AI safety, and is an actual research expert,…
> I think superalignment is absurd Care to explain? Absurd how? An internal contradiction somehow? Unimportant for some reason? Impossible for some reason?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be interested in how CEV, one framework proposed for superalignment, addresses that concern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligen... > our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfe…
Is there an insightful summary of this proposal? The whole paper looks like 38 pages of non-rigorous prose with no clear procedure and already “aligned” LLMs will likely fail to analyze it. Forced myself through some parts of it and all I can get is people don’t know what they want so it would be nice to build an oracle. Yeah, I guess.
That so many people in the AI safety "community" consider him a domain expert has more to say with how pseudo-scientific that field is than his actual credentials as a serious thinker.
Extra respect is due to Jan Leike, then: https://x.com/janleike/status/1791498174659715494
Reading that thread it’s really interesting to me. I see how far we’ve come in a short couple of years. But I still can’t grasp how we’ll achieve AGI within any reasonable amount of time. It just seems like we’re missing some really critical… something… Idk. Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot.
Given the model is probabilistic and does many things in parallel, its output can be understood as a mixture, e.g. 30% trash, 60% rehashed training material, 10% reasoning.
People probe model in different ways, they see different results, and they make different conclusions.
E.g. somebody who assumes AI should have impeccable logic will find "trash" content (e.g. incorrectly retrieved memory) and will declare that the whole AI thing is overhyped bullshit.
Other people might call model a "stochastic parrot" as they recognize it basically just interpolates between parts of the training material.
Finally, people who want to probe reasoning capabilities might find it among the trash. E.g. people found that LLMs can evaluate non-trivial Python code as long as it sends intermediate results to output: https://x.com/GrantSlatton/status/1600388425651453953
I interpret "feel the AGI" (Ilya Sutskever slogan, now repeated by Jan Leike) as a focus on these capabilities, rather than on mistakes it makes. E.g. if we go from 0.1% reasoning to 1% reasoning it's a 10x gain in capabilities, while to an outsider it might look like "it's 99% trash".
In any case, I'd rather trust intuition of people like Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike. They aren't trying to sell something, and overhyping the tech is not in their interest.
Regarding "missing something really critical", it's obvious that human learning is much more efficient than NN learning. So there's some algorithm people are missing. But is it really required for AGI?
And regarding "It cannot reason" - I've seen LLMs doing rather complex stuff which is almost certainly not in the training set, what is it if not reasoning? It's hard to take "it cannot reason" seriously from people
This has just been crazy both to watch and in some small ways interact with up close (I’ve had some very productive and some regrettably heated private discussions advising former colleagues and people I care about to GTFO before the shit really hits the rotary air impeller, and this is going to get so much worse). This thread is full of comments making statements around this looking like some level of criminal enter…
OpenAI was incorporated 9 years ago, but you easily saw that it's the next Enron 10 years ago?
If you meant that remark/objection in good faith then thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
If not, the thank you for hanging a concrete example of the kind of shit I’m alluding to (though at the extremely mild end of the range) directly off the claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Folks much smarter than I seem worried so maybe I should be too but it just seems like such a long shot. Honestly? I'm not too worried We've seen how the google employee that was "seeing a conscience" (in what was basically GPT-2 lol) was a nothing burger We've seen other people in "AI Safety" overplay their importance and hype their CV more than actually do any relevant work. (Usually also playing the diversity ca…
I think when you’re jumping to arguments that resolve to “Ilya Sutskever wasn’t doing important work… might’ve played the diversity card,” it’s time to reassess your mental model and inspect it closely for motivated reasoning.
That has proven to be a mistake
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please. Elon's track record to take tesla from concept car stage to current mass production levels and building SpaceX from scratch is hardly comparable to Altman's track record.
SpaceX didn’t start from scratch. Their initial designs were based on NASA designs. Stop perpetuating the “genius engineer” myth around Elon Musk.