[dead]
Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
771–780 of 1001 posts
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#772[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#773Why are the most upvoted comments primarily cynical? What if he is indeed regretful and worried about people delegating decisions or generating artifacts that may indeed cause significant scalable damage/grief ?
You know let’s not readily attribute malice to something that can explained by thoughtlessness.
It feels like we are neglecting n-th order effects like we did with all these nifty recommender/personalization systems.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#774[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#775[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#776[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#777[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#778[dead]
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#779Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. And it gets clicks. But what I rarely see discussed is the opportunity costs in not having this progress at as fast a pace as possible. The pie chart of existential threats for humanity definitely has rouge AI on it. But that's a slice amidst many human driven threats ranging from nuclear war to oceans dying. What there's not very many human driven slices of pie for is realistic solutions to these issues. On t…
Do you honestly believe that climate change, environmental pollution or nuclear war could eradicate our species? Because I strongly disagree on that-- civilization collapse I'm willing to believe, but I don't really see how any of these could really eradicate our whole species. That seems unreasonably alarmist to me, but I'm quite open to change my view if you want to back up your outlook. I honestly believe that the…
>> Big asteroid impact (historically unlikely)
Not sure if I would call this historically unlikely, definitely extremely infrequent but almost guaranteed to happen again eventually, just maybe on a very large time scale. On the other hand, I think its quite possible some small amount of humans would survive a Chicxulub size asteroid. I'd probably classify its potential damage to the species similarly to other mass starvation causing environmental disasters like climate change.
Re: Geoffrey Hinton leaves Google and warns of danger ahead
#780Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any indication that current methods could lead to a model that generates text as if it had an IQ of 200? These are trained on texts written by humans who are, quite overwhelmingly, much lower in IQ than 200. Where's the research on developing models that don't just produce better or faster facsimiles of broadly average-IQ text?
Think a little bit deeper about what it means to be able to predict the next token. Think about what a predictor has to do in order to do this extremely accurately across a very large corpus of text. There is a big difference between being able to predict what a median human might write next, and being able to predict, in all cases, what the particular human author of a particular passage will write next. Or from ano…
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I grasp the salience here to super-intelligence. The model may be able to predict accurately what any particular human will write, but profoundly intelligent humans will be quite rare in the training data, and even those humans don't approach what people seem to mean when they talk about super-intelligence. Perhaps I'm missing your point.