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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#661

Post by usaar333 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #643
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Agreed it is a poor bell whether.

But:

> Women are more likely than men to be opposed to abortion rights

Where is that coming from? Pew (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini...) has a 5 point higher opposition rate by men.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#662

Post by vineyardmike »

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.

> They reduce the marginal cost of producing plausible content to effectively zero.

This is still "LLMs as a tool for bad people to do bad things" as opposed to "A(G)I is dangerous".

I find it hard to believe that the dangers everyone talks about is simply more propaganda.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#663

Post by Aeolun »

jen729w wrote: post #580
Sharlin wrote: post #441

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…

If it’s any sort of smart AI, you’d need to shut down the entire world at the same time.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#664

Post by [deleted] »

akira2501 wrote: post #436
crowcroft wrote: post #383

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…

> for society and young people (girls in particular [1]). I don't think the article with a single focused example bears that out at all. From the article: > "Even more troubling are the men who signed up for paid subscriptions after the girl launched a program for super-fans receive special photos and other content." > "Her mom conceded that those followers are “probably the scariest ones of all.”" I'm sorry.. but wh…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#665

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#666

Post by worldsayshi »

satvikpendem wrote: post #465
kmacdough wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a harmful AI simply emerges from asking an AI to optimize for some set of seemingly reasonable business goals, only to find it does great harm in the process. Most companies would then enable such behavior by hiding the damage from the press to protect investors rather than temporarily suspending business and admitting the issue.

This is well known via the paperclip maximization problem.

The relevancy of the paperclip maximization thought experiment seems less straightforward to me now. We have AI that is trained to mimic human behaviour using a large amount of data plus reinforcement learning using a fairly large amount of examples.

It's not like we're giving the AI a single task and ask it to optimize everything towards that task. Or at least it's not architected for that kind of problem.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#667

Post by [deleted] »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #285

Ilya's issue isn't developing a Safe AI. Its developing a Safe Business. You can make a safe AI today, but what happens when the next person is managing things? Are they so kindhearted, or are they cold and calculated like the management of many harmful industries today? If you solve the issue of Safe Business and eliminate the incentive structures that lead to 'unsafe' business, you basically obviate a lot of the so…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#668

Post by [deleted] »

tiarafawn wrote: post #403

If superintelligence can be achieved, I'm pessimistic about the safe part. - Sandboxing an intelligence greater than your own seems like an impossible task as the superintelligence could potentially come up with completely novel attack vectors the designers never thought of. Even if the SSI's only interface to the outside world is an air gapped text-based terminal in an underground bunker, it might use advanced psych…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#669

Post by [deleted] »

dougb5 wrote: post #125

> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#670

Post by [deleted] »

aristofun wrote: post #388

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN