71–80 of 146 posts
Sam Altman himself sat in front of the top levels of government and freaked them out by telling them his company was putting in place the groundwork to possibly end humanity. A really strange thing to do, I remain puzzled as to why any CEO would stir up the government like this. Having panicked regulators with science fiction, I hope he's not surprised when they take action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a simple explanation: he believes what he said.
If he believed what he said, why would he put the thing on the internet with plugins? Why would he be helping to secure funding to build even more powerful models? If he believed it was truly dangerous, I don't think he'd be working for a company that is advertising they are actually pursuing super-intelligence ? Not saying you're wrong, but there is definitely some very noticeable dissonance in his messaging and in…
I think he wants to scare people a little in a somewhat controlled way to onramp us to this new reality as fast as possible.
This is such a great time to be a lawyer. Just play any AI like a slot machine until it gives you incorrect results and then sue. Probability is a bitch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We as a population need to be exposed to misinformation to build up immunity against it. We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. See also it’s lasting legacy in the current Italian prime minister, Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, and AfD’s electoral successes in Germany.
> We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. I agree, a bureaucracy banning books and reference material that ran counter to the approved narrative was quite disastrous. Hopefully we don’t repeat that mistake now that everyone is neatly siloed into digital echo chambers. Personally, I think we did pretty well against the (specifically online) deluge of misinformation and fringe ideas for…
If you think these are the two camps, I recommend googling the words “Republican” and “book bans.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the geohot leaks?
I assume comments like these, "GPT-4: 8 x 220B experts trained with different data/task distributions and 16-iter inference." https://twitter.com/soumithchintala/status/16712671501017210... https://archive.li/rfFlW I'm not sure the most canonical paper on mixture of experts but here's one possible: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06538.pdf
Sam Altman has put a target on every AI company/researchers back with his constant fearmongering when he has spoken directly to the government. In his selfish efforts to build the ultimate moat around his company, Altman's attempt to get government regulation to stifle future competition might backfire. Whilst I'd normally say it would be satisfying to see Sam fail due to his selfishness unfortunately this laser focu…
I hope he succeeds, and stifles AI development. AI is too advanced for humans to use properly and it probably will end humanity. If the rest of the industry is brought down, I for one will be happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We as a population need to be exposed to misinformation to build up immunity against it. We tried this in the 1930s in Europe and it didn’t seem to go very well. See also it’s lasting legacy in the current Italian prime minister, Marine Le Pen’s popularity in France, and AfD’s electoral successes in Germany.
Am I correct in my understanding that your comment is equating Nazi Germany and current popular right-wing politicians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope he succeeds, and stifles AI development. AI is too advanced for humans to use properly and it probably will end humanity. If the rest of the industry is brought down, I for one will be happy.
You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.
People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists.
If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch from advancement to mitigation, international bodies co-operate. Things would probably be ok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a simple explanation: he believes what he said.
If he believed what he said, why would he put the thing on the internet with plugins? Why would he be helping to secure funding to build even more powerful models? If he believed it was truly dangerous, I don't think he'd be working for a company that is advertising they are actually pursuing super-intelligence ? Not saying you're wrong, but there is definitely some very noticeable dissonance in his messaging and in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.
This argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch f…