Live data from Hacker News

The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

aphyr.com

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#91

"Alignment" In what world would I ever expect a commercial (or governmental) entity to have precise alignment with me personally, or even with my own business? I argue those relationships are necessarily adversarial, and trusting anyone else to align their "AI" tool to my goals, needs, and/or desires is a recipe for having my livelihood completely reassigned into someone else's wallet.

Interesting you single out commercial and government entities but not people. What defines the difference? Bureaucracy? Concentration of resources? Legal theory? I guess I'm trying to wonder why this line of thinking (in theory) doesn't turn to paranoia about everybody. I don't know much ethics or political theory or anything.

> Interesting you single out commercial and government entities but not people. What defines the difference? Bureaucracy? Concentration of resources? Legal theory?

Not OP, but for me, kind family and friends, and various feel-good pieces of fiction and other writing, at least let me envision the possibility of a perfectly kind/dedicated/innocent/naieve individual who is truly on my side 100%. But even that is mostly imagination and fiction... although convincing others of that isn't necessairly an argument worth making.

Commercial entities have a fundamental purpouse of profit. While profit doesn't have to be a zero-sum game - ideally, everyone benefits in a somewhat balanced way - there's some fundamental tension, in that each party's profit is necessairly limited by the other party's.

Government entities have a fundamental purpouse of executing the will of the state, which is rather explicitly not the same thing as the will of you as an individual.

Both commercial and government entities also tend to involve multiple people, which gets statistics working against you - you really gathered that many people who would put your needs above their own, with exactly zero "imposters" - which in this context just means people with a bit of rational self interest?

> I guess I'm trying to wonder why this line of thinking (in theory) doesn't turn to paranoia about everybody. I don't know much ethics or political theory or anything.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Trust, but verify.

You might not be able to put absolute blind trust in anybody. I certainly can't. However, one can hedge one's bets, and diversify trust. Build social circles of people with good character, good judgement, and calm temperments - and statistics will start working for you. It's unlikely they'll all conspire to betray you simultaniously, especially if you've ensured betrayal costs much and gains little. While petty and jealous people can indeed be irrational enough to betray under such circumstances, it'll be harder for them to create the kind of conspiracy necessary for mass betrayal that might cause significant enough damage to warrant proper paranoia. You might still have to watch out for gaslighters stealing credit (document your work!) and framing people (document your character!) and other such dishonest and manipulative behavior... but if everyone's looking out for the same thing, well, that's just everyone looking out for everyone else! That's a community looking out for each other, and holding everyone honest and accountable. Most find comfort in that, rather than the stress paranoia implies.

Put yourself in a room full of manipulators and schemers, on the other hand, and "parnoia about everyone" might be the only reasonable or rational response!

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#92
post #82
post #71

There's really only one thing we need to do to avoid the apocalypse, and that is to not hand over the launch codes to a LLM. Seems easy enough, I'm actually pretty confident in even the most incompetent of current world leaders in this particular task.

You don't think a human using an LLM to generate content that convinces another human to press the launch button is a concern? Sure seems like there's more than one thing we need to do.

The exact same concern already existed without LLMs. It is called social engineering, and has been a known risk for a while.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#93
post #66

In short, the ML industry is creating the conditions under which anyone with sufficient funds can train an unaligned model. Rather than raise the bar against malicious AI, ML companies have lowered it. This is true, and I believe that the "sufficient funds" threshold will keep dropping too. It's a relief more than a concern, because I don't trust that big models from American or Chinese labs will always be aligned wi…

I mean that does partially reduce the chances of a cartel, but not really near as likely as you think. Most countries have a pretty strong ban on most kinds of weapons, the US is one of the few that lets everyone run around with their rooty tooty point and shooty, but most countries have implemented bans. Some because the government doesn't want the people having them, and in others the citizens call for the bans bec…

[deleted]

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#94
Other articles in this series discussed over the past five days:

1. Introduction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47689648> (619 comments)

2. Dynamics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47693678> (0 comments)

3. Culture: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47703528>

4. Information Ecology: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718502> (106 comments)

5. Annoyances: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47730981> (171 comments)

6. Psychological Hazards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47747936> (0 comments)

And this submission makes:

7. Safety: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754379> (89 comments, presently).

There's also a comprehensive PDF version for those who prefer that kind of thing: https://aphyr.com/data/posts/411/the-future-of-everything-is...> (PDF) 26 pp.

(Derived from aphyr's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754834>.)

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting you single out commercial and government entities but not people. What defines the difference? Bureaucracy? Concentration of resources? Legal theory? I guess I'm trying to wonder why this line of thinking (in theory) doesn't turn to paranoia about everybody. I don't know much ethics or political theory or anything.

You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural just by looking at the effort that corporations and governments make to undermine it. Alignment between people is perhaps not a state of nature , but it really is a pretty normal consequence of a fairly small amount of education and of middle-class existence that is left to itself (i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups). If…

> You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural

It really isn't. The whole point of the market system is to collectively align people's actions towards a shared target of "Pareto-optimized total welfare". And even then the alignment is approximate and heavily constrained due to a combination of transaction costs (which also account for e.g. externalities) and information asymmetries. But transaction costs and information asymmetries apply to any system of alignment, including non-market ones. The market (augmented with some pre-determined legal assignment of property rights, potentially including quite complex bundles of rules and regulations) is still your best bet.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#96

The author is still grieving by watching a civilisation changing technology just passing by. Every single one of the problems they note applies to any technology that existed. The internet produced 4chan. Produced scammers. Produced fraud. Instrumental in spreading child porn. Caused suicides. Many people lost their lives due to bullying on the internet. Many develop have addictions to gaming. To anyone who has given…

> We know how the internet turned out despite pessimists flagging potential problems with it.

A sludge of spyware and addiction machines which employ negative emotion and outrage to drive shareholder value?

"The internet" is a pretty big tent. Everything from text messages to streaming video to online gaming to social media to encyclopedias. I think 15 years ago you could make a strong case that the internet was mostly a net positive, I think now that is much more difficult. If governments are able to fully realise their plans for surveillance and control, it will almost certainly become a net negative. Of course with many positive aspects.

So likewise with AI, we should be careful to not make the same mistakes as we did with the internet so we can realise something that is mostly positive. We could absolutely have a world where AI is as beneficial as you believe it will be, but we don't get there through inaction, we get there by being deeply critical of the negative aspects of AI and ensuring that we don't let a small number of hyper scalers control our access to it.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#97
post #51
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just an alternative optimization procedure This "just" is... not-incorrect, but also not really actionable/relevant. 1. LLMs aren't a fully genetic algorithm exploring the space of all possible "neuron" architectures. The "social" capabilities we want may not be possible to acquire through the weight-based stuff going on now. 2. In biological life, a big part of that is detecting "thing like me", for finding a mate…

While I don't disagree about (2), my experience suggests that LLMs are biased towards generating code for future maintenance by LLMs. Unless instructed otherwise, they avoid abstractions that reduce repetitive patterns and would help future human maintainers. The capitalist environment of LLMs seems to encourage such traits, too. (Apart from that, I'm generally suspect of evolution-based arguments because they are of…

I think they're biased toward code that will convince you to check a box and say "ok this is fine". The reason they avoid abstraction is it requires some thought and design, neither of which are things that LLMs can really do. but take a simple pattern and repeat it, and you're right in an LLM's wheelhouse.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#98

> They also build secondary LLMs which double-check that the core LLM is not telling people how to build pipe bombs Such a fear mongering position. You can learn to build pipe bombs already. Take any chemical reaction that produces gas and heat and contain it. Congratulations, you have a pipe bomb. Meanwhile.. just.. ask an LLM if you can mix certain cleaning chemicals safely. > I see four moats that could prevent th…

> Meanwhile.. just.. ask an LLM if you can mix certain cleaning chemicals safely.

the cost of the wrong answer to this question is so incredibly high that I hope nobody is sincerely asking an LLM for this information. The things people trust to "machine that gives convincing answers that are correct 90% of the time" continue to shock me

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#99
post #88

"Alignment" In what world would I ever expect a commercial (or governmental) entity to have precise alignment with me personally, or even with my own business? I argue those relationships are necessarily adversarial, and trusting anyone else to align their "AI" tool to my goals, needs, and/or desires is a recipe for having my livelihood completely reassigned into someone else's wallet.

> precise alignment with me personally, or even with my own business Seems like a strawman, I don't think anyone means this when talking about alignment. More general goals, like avoiding paperclip maximization, are broadly applicable to humanity.

If you've built an agent that can act even vaguely close to a paperclip maximizer, you've already solved 99.999% or more of the alignment problem. The hard part of alignment so far is getting the AI to do something useful in pursuit of the right goal, and not just waste energy. We still have no idea how to do this with any effectiveness: even modern "RL from verified feedback" systems are effectively toys, the equivalent of playing video games, not really of doing something useful in the real world.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural just by looking at the effort that corporations and governments make to undermine it. Alignment between people is perhaps not a state of nature , but it really is a pretty normal consequence of a fairly small amount of education and of middle-class existence that is left to itself (i.e. without brain-washing and deliberately working to create out-groups). If…

> You can tell that broad alignment between people is natural It really isn't. The whole point of the market system is to collectively align people's actions towards a shared target of "Pareto-optimized total welfare". And even then the alignment is approximate and heavily constrained due to a combination of transaction costs (which also account for e.g. externalities) and information asymmetries. But transaction cos…

Broad alignment =/= Wealth maximization.
Post reply on HN