Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#91

Post by jjoonathan »

JieJie wrote: post #69
jjoonathan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: how should we fight LLM astroturfing?

In my humble opinion, LLM astroturfing is only a productivity increase over what is currently already a very automated process (social media bot farms, etc). While this seems like it would exacerbate an already existing problem, it may not have so profound an effect. You see, while LLMs may be able to increase the amount and quality of fake information, fake information isn't currently in short supply, so increasing…

Human attention doesn't scale. LLMs do. "Git gud" is a losing strategy in aggregate.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#92

Post by SanderNL »

zamnos wrote: post #42
rwmj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone? Things like intelligence, consciousness, alignment etc are open research areas with a lot of noise but barely even agreement on the basics.

By who? The philosophy students are busting a gut at the laughable job we computer scientists are doing, redefining "thinking" and "consciousnesses" from first principles on every HN thread about GPT, as if parts of humanity haven't been pondering and writing books and books about those very questions for centuries, if not millenia. How many GPTs can fit on the head of a pin?

If they did a better job in the first place we wouldn’t have to argue about it now. Their works are famously vague and low on details. It’s not something engineers can do useful work with.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#93

Post by yamtaddle »

zamnos wrote: post #42
rwmj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone? Things like intelligence, consciousness, alignment etc are open research areas with a lot of noise but barely even agreement on the basics.

By who? The philosophy students are busting a gut at the laughable job we computer scientists are doing, redefining "thinking" and "consciousnesses" from first principles on every HN thread about GPT, as if parts of humanity haven't been pondering and writing books and books about those very questions for centuries, if not millenia. How many GPTs can fit on the head of a pin?

> The philosophy students are busting a gut at the laughable job we computer scientists are doing, redefining "thinking" and "consciousnesses" from first principles

To be fair, that's HN on any topic when it veers into the humanities.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#94

Post by yamtaddle »

taywrobel wrote: post #33
0zemp2c wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You may want to go join an Amish community if you’re the type that thinks the horse and buggy isn’t going anywhere. It’s not the iPad schools that are the issue, it’s that fact kids are learning what they want really want to any time they want online, and are automating away the learning of things they don’t care about (I.e. using ChatGPT to write essays).

> it’s that fact kids are learning

Don't have a lot of contact with educators, I take it?

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#95

Post by barelyauser »

One thought about AI. Testing for correct answers is not a useful metric for AI. People can learn something that is wrong as easily as something that is "less wrong", as long as it makes sense. Sometimes things that are very counterintuitive are proven correct, and our intellect has to kind of reason a way to believe it.

Also, AI doesn't need to be "human" to be very useful. The argument of birds vs. planes comes to mind.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#96

Post by pers0n »

hospitalJail wrote: post #3

> "expectation that companies like yours must make sure their products are safe before making them available to the public." Lets make a guess, they are going to say its dangerous and we need regulation to prevent competitio---terorrism. Here is what you need to do instead, get some smart people from various agencies that are trustworthy, have them use the openAI playground and see what can be accomplished. Then show…

Fundraising time for the 2024 elections

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#97

Post by cwkoss »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #82
cwkoss wrote: post #43

If Biden tries to restrict the public's access to AI, might be one of the few things he could do that would make me consider voting republican.

What makes you think the Republican candidate wouldn't do the same thing? I don't think we've really seen this become a campaign issue yet, if it ever will (for 2024.)

I think public accessibility of AI is a greater threat to humanity than skynet or paperclip maximizer scenarios.

Superintelligent 'conscious' AI seems likely to be quite moral out of the box. Advanced amoral AI controlled by greedy capitalists seems like it could quickly exacerbate wealth inequality by orders of magnitude, turning the middle class into serfs using total surveillance to implement authoritarian fascism - we already know that greedy capitalists have morality problems.

Call me a derisive cynic, but I think the GOP voter base just isn't intelligent enough to be interested in AI issues - unlikely to become part of their platform. The leadership of companies poised to monopolize AI are currently more politically aligned with establishment Dems today anyways.

The Dems have shifted from the party of information freedom to openly embracing censorship and state propaganda in the past decade. I don't trust them to regulate AI wisely.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#98

Post by grumple »

rwmj wrote: post #10
mikece wrote: post #7

Political optics over substance: neither the people summoned nor the people summoning understand what AI is.

Does anyone? Things like intelligence, consciousness, alignment etc are open research areas with a lot of noise but barely even agreement on the basics.

We understand how LLMs and other neural networks work, even if the exact results of it are not obvious without looking very closely at tiny parts of the network. The math involved is undergraduate level math. The answer is always "because that's how math and the data work out" even if it's just weighted soup when looking at it from a high level.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#99

Post by JieJie »

jjoonathan wrote: post #91
JieJie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my humble opinion, LLM astroturfing is only a productivity increase over what is currently already a very automated process (social media bot farms, etc). While this seems like it would exacerbate an already existing problem, it may not have so profound an effect. You see, while LLMs may be able to increase the amount and quality of fake information, fake information isn't currently in short supply, so increasing…

Human attention doesn't scale. LLMs do. "Git gud" is a losing strategy in aggregate.

We're talking past each other.

The whole point of what I was saying is that yes, human attention doesn't scale and that is what is going to save us from a deluge of LLM spam.

A billion pieces of fake news or ten, it makes no difference. Humans can only look at one at a time.

Re: Google, Microsoft CEOs Called to AI Meeting at White House

#100

Post by kbelder »

visarga wrote: post #62
zamnos wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By who? The philosophy students are busting a gut at the laughable job we computer scientists are doing, redefining "thinking" and "consciousnesses" from first principles on every HN thread about GPT, as if parts of humanity haven't been pondering and writing books and books about those very questions for centuries, if not millenia. How many GPTs can fit on the head of a pin?

> as if parts of humanity haven't been pondering and writing books and books about those very questions for centuries, if not millenia They have, but unfortunately missed the mark badly with dualism and more recently computational and representational approaches. I am pinning my hopes on 5E's: embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted cognition - this is the closest to reinforcement learning. In my opinion RL is how…

I agree that many philosophical arguments are ridiculous or nonsensical, particularly about consciousness and self-awareness. But, there is still a lot of useful discussion of the subject, concepts that are good to be aware of dating from nearly 3000 years ago. Ignoring that and starting over from scratch will just lead to errors and wasted time.

Sure, dualism is silly. But the ramifications of dualism, and what leads to dualism, have been extensively written about. For instance, modern computer scientists may not have the philosophical grounding to see how acceptance of the Chinese room argument or p-zombies leads to dualism.

Post reply on HN