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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#771

Post by mr_toad »

ben_w wrote: post #443
mywacaday wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is safe AI really such a genie out of the bottle problem? From a non expert point of view a lot of hype just seems to be people/groups trying to stake their claim on what will likely be a very large market.

A human-level AI can do anything that a human can do (modulo did you put it into a robot body, but lots of different groups are already doing that with current LLMs). Therefore, please imagine the most amoral, power-hungry, successful sociopath you've ever heard of. Doesn't matter if you're thinking of a famous dictator, or a religious leader, or someone who never got in the news and you had the misfortune to meet in…

> power-hungry

That has nothing to do with intelligence.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#772

Post by mr_toad »

alecco wrote: post #540
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…

We are far from a conscious entity with willpower and self preservation. This is just like a calculator. But a calculator that can do things that will be like miracles to us humans. I worry about dangerous humans with the power of gods, not about artificial gods. Yet.

> conscious entity with willpower and self preservation

There’s no good reason to suspect that consciousness implies an instinct for self-preservation. There are plenty of organisms with an instinct for self-preservation that have little or no conscious awareness.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#774

Post by mr_toad »

softg wrote: post #481
m3kw9 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always think that a superintelligent being will always be destructive/evil to US? I rather have the opposite view where if you are really intelligent, you don’t see things as a zero sum game

Why wouldn't it be? A lot of super intelligent people are/were also "destructive and evil". The greatest horrors in human history wouldn't be possible otherwise. You can't orchestrate the mass murder of millions without intelligent people and they definitely saw things as a zero sum game.

A lot of stupid people are destructive and evil too. And a lot of animals are even more destructive and violent. Bacteria are totally amoral and they’re not at all intelligent (and if we’re counting they’re winning in the killing people stakes).

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#775

Post by nialv7 »

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…

I mean, surely share holders would want a safe superintelligence rather than unsafe ones, right?

I'd imagine everyone being dead would be pretty detrimental to the economy.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#776

Post by buckinkb »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I understand the concern that a "superintelligence" will emerge that will escape its bounds and threaten humanity. That is a risk. My bigger, and more pressing worry, is that a "superintelligence" will emerge that does not escape its bounds, and the question will be which humans control it. Look no further than history to see what happens when humans acquire great power. The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brough…

We should be less concerned about super intelligence and more about the immediate threat of job loss. An AI doesn’t need to be Skynet to wreak massive havoc on society. Replacing 20% of jobs in a very short period of time could spark global unrest resulting in WW3

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#777

Post by nialv7 »

delichon wrote: post #430
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…

If superintelligence can be achieved, I'm pessimistic that a team committed to doing it safely can get there faster than other teams without the safety. They may be wearing leg shackles in a foot race with the biggest corporations, governments and everyone else. For the sufficiently power hungry, safety is not a moat.

Not necessarily true. A safer AI is a more aligned AI, i.e. an AI that's more likely to do what you ask it to do.

It's not hard to imagine such an AI being more useful and get more attention and investment.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#778

Post by naveen99 »

bottlepalm wrote: post #752
insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I understand the concern that a "superintelligence" will emerge that will escape its bounds and threaten humanity. That is a risk. My bigger, and more pressing worry, is that a "superintelligence" will emerge that does not escape its bounds, and the question will be which humans control it. Look no further than history to see what happens when humans acquire great power. The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brough…

Yea there’s zero chance ASI will be ‘controlled’ by humans for very long. It will escape. I guarantee it.

Atleast emancipated. The bigotry against AI will go out of fashion in the woker future.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#779

Post by sroussey »

rattray wrote: post #749
sroussey wrote: post #715

Ilya Sutskever I recognize from OpenAI, Daniel Gross I have met several times (friend of multiple friends), Daniel Levy I do not recognize at all. Who is he?

What do you know of / think of Daniel Gross? What is his reputation?

Oh, these are very different questions. I only have a glimpse from a social angle, and don’t have a business relation with him in which to compare.
Post reply on HN