This fell off the front page incredibly fast. Caught by the anti-flamewar code?
I saw the same thing.
Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
81–90 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#82Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
[deleted]
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is to say that brains aren't just regression based function approximators?
My laptop emits sound as i do but it doesnt mean it can sing or talk. It’s software that does what it was programmed to, and so does ai. It may mimic the human brain but that’s about it.
>> It’s software that does what it was programmed to, and so does ai.
That's a big part of the issue with machine learning models--they are undiscoverable. You build a model with a bunch of layers and hyperparameters, but no one really understands how it works or by extension how to "fix bugs".
If we say it "does what it was programmed to", what was it programmed to do? Here is the data that was used to train it, but how will it respond to a given input? Who knows?
That does not mean that they need to be heavily regulated. On the contrary, they need to be opened up and thoroughly "explored" before we can "entrust" them to given functions.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#84Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
I'm squarely in the "stochastic parrot" camp (I know it's not a simple markov model, but still, ChatGPT doesn't think), and it's clearly possible to interpret this as a grifting, but your argumentation is too simple. You're leaving out the essentials. These models do more than fitting the data given. They can output it in a variety of ways, and through their approximation, can synthesize data as well. They can output…
Sure, you're right, but the simple explanation of regression is better to help people understand. What you're saying, I agree with mostly, but it changes nothing to contradict the fantasy scenario proposed by all of those who are so worried. At that point, it's just "it can be better than (some) humans at language and it can have things stacked on top to synthesize what it outputs."
Do we want to go down the road of making white collar jobs the legislatively required elevator attendants? Instead of just banning AI in general via executive agency?
That sounds like a better solution to me, actually. OpenAI's lobbyists would never go for that though. Can't have a moat that way.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#85Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
Why is it so hard to hear this perspective? Like, genuinely curious. This is the first I hear of someone cogently putting this thought out there, but it seems rather painfully obvious -- even if perhaps incorrect, but certainly a perspective that is very easy to comprehend and one that merits a lot of discussion. Why is it almost nonexistent? I remember even in the hay day of crypto fever you'd still have A LOT of fo…
> Why is it so hard to hear this perspective? Like, genuinely curious.
Because people have different definition of what intelligence is. Recreating the human brain in a computer would definitely be neat and interesting but you don't need that nor AGI to be revolutionary.
LLMs, as perfect Chinese Rooms, lack a mind or human intelligence but demonstrate increasingly sophisticated behavior. If they can perform tasks better than humans, does their lack of "understanding" and "thinking" matter?
The goal is to create a different form of intelligence, superior in ways that benefit us. Planes (or rockets!) don't "fly" like birds do but for our human needs, they are effectively much better at flying that birds ever could be.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#86Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
>Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Are you aware that you are an 80 billion neuron biological neural network?
And this is why I always hate how computer parts are named with biological terms.... a neural network's neuron doesn't share much with a human brain's neuron
Just like a CPU isn't "like your brain" and HDD "like your memories"
Absolutely nothing says our current approach is the right one to mimic a human brain
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#87Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
The whole story of OpenAI is really slimy too. It was created as a non-profit, then it was handed somehow to Sam who took it closed and for-profit (using AI fear mongering as an excuse) and is now seeking to leverage government to lock it into a position of market dominance.
The whole saga makes Altman look really, really terrible.
If AI really is this dangerous then we definitely don't need people like this in control of it.
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#88Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
Who is to say that brains aren't just regression based function approximators?
The problem is that you have to bring proofs
Who's to say we're not in a simulation ? Who's to say god doesn't exist ?
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#89Imagine thinking that regression based function approximators are capable of anything other than fitting the data you give it. Then imagine willfully hyping up and scaring people who don't understand, and because it can predict words you take advantage of the human tendency to anthropomorphize, so it follows that it is something capable of generalized and adaptable intelligence. Shame on all of the people involved in…
While I think it needs goals to be some kind of AGI, it certainly can plan and convince people of things. Also, seems like the goal already exists maximize shareholder value. In fact if AI can beat someone at chess and figure out protein folding and figure out fusion plasma design, why is it a stretch to think it can't be good at project management. To me a scenario where it leads to an immediate reduction in the hum…
> I don't want every to know how to make a bomb.
This information is not created inside the LLMs, it's part of their training data. If someone is motivated enough, I'm sure they'd need no more than a few minutes of googling.
> I do feel like this is more than a math formula
The sum is greater than the parts! It can just be a math formula and still produce amazing results. After all, our brains are just a neat arrangement of atoms :)
Re: Sam Altman goes before US Congress to propose licenses for building AI
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been able to commit malicious acts by themselves historically, no AI needed. In other words, LLMs are only as dangerous as the humans operating them, and therefore the solution is to stop crime instead of regulating AI, which only seeks to make OpenAI a monopoly.
This isn't a trick question, genuinely curious – do you agree that guns are not the problem and should not be regulated – yes, while they can be used for harm, the right approach to gun violence is to police the crime. I think the objection to this would be that currently not everyone in the world an expert in biochemistry or at hacking into computer systems. Even if you're correct in principal, perhaps the risks of…
AI systems provide many benefits to society, such as image recognition, anomaly detection, educational and programming used of LLMs, to name a few.
Guns only have a primarily harmful use which is to kill or injure someone. While that act of killing may be justified when the person violates societal values in some way, making regular citizens the decision makers in whether a certain behavior is allowed or disallowed and being able to immediately make a judgment and execute upon it leads to a sort of low-trust, vigilante environment; which is why the same argument I made above doesn’t apply for guns.