Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's chugging your own kool-aid at a pretty high level. Impressive!
I don't really understand what you mean.
I was referring to the parent of your post.
OpenAI Charter
81–90 of 183 posts
Re: OpenAI Charter
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.
> What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Competitive pressure, and the "if we don't, someone else will" effect (or Moloch, if you like). AGI- particularly recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from gett…
> recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from getting it
How? This doesn't seem axiomatic.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.
> What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Competitive pressure, and the "if we don't, someone else will" effect (or Moloch, if you like). AGI- particularly recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from gett…
This is a great response. Thanks.
> Not by choice they aren't.
This is why I was glad to see this in TFA:
>>> ...while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research."
Even for Weak AI, history tells us that these factors -- policy and industry collaboration -- tend to be significant ingredients in successful safety reforms.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it can be used as much to generate welfare as destruction when it goes right , but the cases where it goes wrong are both plentiful and heavily biased towards destruction.
What are a few examples of those cases, exactly?
See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law. Remember, "AI" in these terms is basically just stochastic optimization (ie: machine learning), so the whole range of problems with throwing mathematical optimization at a vaguely-defined intuitive problem crop up. And there are a lot of those.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#85>> "We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that _safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future_, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research." This seems like the key disclosure statement. I never reconciled how sharing A[G]I te…
I never understood why it was any different or why they attempted to compel others to 'dump everything they had publicly'. No one who comes across something as powerful as AGI is going to think : Yeah, why don't I just publish everything about it. A maturity step has seemingly occurred post funding
Re: OpenAI Charter
#86So I have a question. To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? The manipulation of social media by foreign actors armed with dumb-AI / automation was an obvious conclusion to many of us well before the Snowden leaks, but what could we do exactly? I remember ha…
> To "avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power" what does one do with an idea or line of research that could potentially harm humanity or unduly concentrate power? You don't publish it : See Pandora's box. You secure it. You demonstrate its capability and you focus public critical discussion from then on with the creators of it along with a panel of individuals who can probe are…
Learn to quote properly please. Only include what is relevant to your reply - anyone can access the whole post if they want more context.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are a few examples of those cases, exactly?
See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law. Remember, "AI" in these terms is basically just stochastic optimization (ie: machine learning), so the whole range of problems with throwing mathematical optimization at a vaguely-defined intuitive problem crop up. And there are a lot of those.
> See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law
No, I asked for specific examples. This is part of the handwaving I'm talking about. Can you give me something other than the maniacal paperclip optimizer?
Re: OpenAI Charter
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not quite. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the gain-of-function bioethics literature and recent debates, to get a better sense of what I'm trying to convey.
Why don't you just summarize your actual point or at least provide further guidance? You literally posted a link without any further clarification about its relevance. As it stands, you're not giving me any incentive to "strongly reconsider" my position.
Perhaps this is one of those things that can't be easily 30-second summarized, lest understood without a modicum of effort! (Besides you sound, frankly, somewhat uncharitable --so I will stop wasting your time and refrain from trying to persuade you further.)
Re: OpenAI Charter
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed but it is such lines that bring in the $$$ in the valley. At some point, humanity has to cut the fluff and games and get to the fundamentals so we can all rise much higher heights of our collective intelligence. It's very hard to do so when you're constantly bombarded with crafty agenda based language on a day-to-day basis. > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (v…
No offense intended, but I don't think you and I are actually agreeing on anything. I can't really take your comments in this thread seriously.
That's fine. I don't hide who I am. I've discussed things on various accounts/mediums over the years and more increasingly have no concern about restricting my identity. Maybe you can make accurate assumptions as to why this is the case.
In any event, speaking freely and openly in this manner helps put my at ease knowing I at least got the information in its raw form out in the open. Whether or not you believe my framing, arguments, commentary is up to you. Whether or not anyone inquires is up to them. The information was put out there and that clears my conscience in a manner about the times ahead.
Re: OpenAI Charter
#90> We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. Wouldn't it be much more likely that a non-value-aligned project comes close first? Wouldn't the Google/Apple/Microsofts of the w…
What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.
They're also the world leaders in automobile safety-defects.