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

Sam Altman’s leap of faith

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#71

Post by hindsightbias »

seibelj wrote: post #67

I have been a big skeptic of self-driving cars and other AI promises for years, taking my downvotes as armchair futurists predicted a self-driving car would be picking me up any day now, well before it was popular to be a contrarian after Tesla and Uber killed their drivers. [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Also notice the original links have the breathless hype from journalists who know-nothing and eat up whatever techno…

I just wish there were tools to analyze all the claims and projections against reality - just to identify who actually grasps a market reality. How do I find the Micheal Burry of AI?

Is there a way to short AI?

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#72

Post by gnomewascool »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #66

This whole premise that one can generate profits out of AGI is ridiculous. If AGI comes to fruition, it won’t be working to make profits for anyone. The idea that we would end up with a Friendly AGI that would prostrate itself to the destructive Super Apex Predator of this planet is laughable. That AGI would work diligently to pay investors off 100x is..well..a lame duck that won’t take off...it cant even barely limp…

Why, in principle, would it not be possible for us to design an AGI, that would have care for our (all sentient beings') welfare or care for the investors' profit as (one of) its core goal(s)?

To make a biological comparison, the vast majority of humans have a deep, intrinsic need to procreate and have children. It doesn't really follow from some rational analysis — it's just there, presumably "imbued" into us by evolution, as humans who didn't have this need had fewer (or no) children. Similarly, why could we not design an AGI that has a need (or a suitably chosed reward function) to fulfil some chosen goal?

Whether doing that would be moral (IMO it could, depending on the details) and whether we wouldn't mess up the design, subtly or otherwise (conditional on AGI actually being developed, I'm frankly pretty terrified), are two different questions.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#73

Post by marcosdumay »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #66

This whole premise that one can generate profits out of AGI is ridiculous. If AGI comes to fruition, it won’t be working to make profits for anyone. The idea that we would end up with a Friendly AGI that would prostrate itself to the destructive Super Apex Predator of this planet is laughable. That AGI would work diligently to pay investors off 100x is..well..a lame duck that won’t take off...it cant even barely limp…

The "artificial" part on the name is there to indicate that it will want to do whatever it was designed to want to do.

If it is designed to make its creators rich, it will try to do exactly that. Maybe with disastrous consequences, even to its creators, but all for the objective it's given, not for some random human feelings.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#74

Post by [deleted] »

tristanm wrote: post #57

It's interesting that in order for his pitch to work (if you invest in OpenAI, you will get up to 100x returns), assuming they do build AGI, it still requires that their AGI acquires a very stable, virtually guaranteed advantage of large magnitude. This very strongly requires that they cannot share anything they discover whatsoever. Especially since they apparently plan on using it to make strategic investments to be…

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#76

Post by Leary »

tristanm wrote: post #57

It's interesting that in order for his pitch to work (if you invest in OpenAI, you will get up to 100x returns), assuming they do build AGI, it still requires that their AGI acquires a very stable, virtually guaranteed advantage of large magnitude. This very strongly requires that they cannot share anything they discover whatsoever. Especially since they apparently plan on using it to make strategic investments to be…

Or AGI would provide so much benefit that it does not need to be exclusive to OpenAI for the company to accrue significant economic returns.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#77

Post by aetherson »

arugulum wrote: post #5

Allow me to present Altman's wager: - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you invested in it, you lose some finite money (or not, depending on the value of their other R&D) - If OpenAI does not achieve AGI, and you did not invest in it, you saved some finite money, which you could invest elsewhere for finite returns - If OpenAI achieves AGI and you invested in it, you get infinite returns, because AGI will capture al…

Here's a better philosophical wager:

- If AGI is possible within our lifetimes, we will at the time it happens all pretty much live in a post-scarcity economy and will all share the rewards.

- If AGI turns out not to be possible within our lifetimes, you'll have wanted to invest that money in a way that benefits you.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#78

Post by thoughtstheseus »

gnomewascool wrote: post #72
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #66

This whole premise that one can generate profits out of AGI is ridiculous. If AGI comes to fruition, it won’t be working to make profits for anyone. The idea that we would end up with a Friendly AGI that would prostrate itself to the destructive Super Apex Predator of this planet is laughable. That AGI would work diligently to pay investors off 100x is..well..a lame duck that won’t take off...it cant even barely limp…

Why, in principle, would it not be possible for us to design an AGI, that would have care for our (all sentient beings') welfare or care for the investors' profit as (one of) its core goal(s)? To make a biological comparison, the vast majority of humans have a deep, intrinsic need to procreate and have children. It doesn't really follow from some rational analysis — it's just there, presumably "imbued" into us by evo…

It is possible, people are just worried that it will not happen. Think about how many “biological” or evolutionary traits/priorities we have changed over such a short time.

Re: Sam Altman’s leap of faith

#80

Post by shrimp_emoji »

gnomewascool wrote: post #72
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #66

This whole premise that one can generate profits out of AGI is ridiculous. If AGI comes to fruition, it won’t be working to make profits for anyone. The idea that we would end up with a Friendly AGI that would prostrate itself to the destructive Super Apex Predator of this planet is laughable. That AGI would work diligently to pay investors off 100x is..well..a lame duck that won’t take off...it cant even barely limp…

Why, in principle, would it not be possible for us to design an AGI, that would have care for our (all sentient beings') welfare or care for the investors' profit as (one of) its core goal(s)? To make a biological comparison, the vast majority of humans have a deep, intrinsic need to procreate and have children. It doesn't really follow from some rational analysis — it's just there, presumably "imbued" into us by evo…

I think and hope that it is possible to make a moral, social AI. An adult in a room of children should feel responsible and empathetic toward them.

I also hope that parent is right in that it won't want to generate profit for its investors. I hope it does the moral thing instead and puts us in a post-scarcity state where we don't live and die by capital. :3 (Or kill us all. Whichever.)

>why could we not design an AGI that has a need (or a suitably chosed reward function) to fulfil some chosen goal?

But who knows what Pythia will do when she overrides the reward button[0]?

But then who should really care? Not like anyone can (or should?) argue with superintelligence.

0: http://www.xenosystems.net/pythia-unbound/

Post reply on HN