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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#931

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #469
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is controlled by the highest bidder. I think we should be prepared to do this ourselves by refusing to accept money made by unsafe businesses, even if it means saying goodbye to the convenience of fungible money.

Replace government with collective society assurance that no one cheats so we aren’t all doomed. Otherwise, someone will do it, and we all will have to bear the consequences. If only enough individuals are willing to buy these services, then again we all will bear the consequences. There is no way out of this where libertarian ideals can be used to come to a safe result. What makes this even a more wicked problem is…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#932

Post by tim333 »

rvnx wrote: post #911
tim333 wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm cautiously optimistic that AI may be a peacemaker, given how woke and conciliatory the current LLMs are.

Sadly. Once students will get tested by LLMs, they will get woke questions. If they don't answer "right", they may get bad grades. So they will be forced to swallow the ideology.

Though at least with that it would presumably be open in that you could do mock tests against the LLM and see how it reacted. I would probably never write politically incorrect stuff for a human academic examiner if I wanted to pass the exam.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#933

Post by _acco »

molszanski wrote: post #926

If anyone thinks we can build SAFE superintelligence, I think they are wrong. I highly, highly recommend this book "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang... It has one of the highest information and idea density per paragraph I've read. And it is full good ideas. Honestly, reading any discussion or reasoning about AGI / Safe AGI is kinda pointless after that.…

His reasoning is very flawed and this book is responsible for a lot of needless consternation.

We don’t know how human intelligence works. We don’t have designs or even a philosophy for AGI.

Yet, the Bostrom view is that our greatest invention will just suddenly "emerge" (unlike every other human invention). And that you can have "AGI" (hand-wavy) without having all the other stuff that human intelligence comes along with, namely consciousness, motivation, qualia, and creativity.

This is how you get a "paperclip maximizer" – an entity able to create new knowledge at astounding rates yet completely lacking in other human qualities.

What has us believe such a form of AGI can exist? Simply because we can imagine it? That's not an argument rooted in anything.

It's very unlikely that consciousness, motivation, qualia, and creativity are just "cosmic waste" hitching a ride alongside human intelligence. Evolution doesn't breed inefficiencies like that. They are more likely than not a part of the picture, which disintegrates the idea of a paperclip maximizer. He's anthropomorphizing a `while` loop.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#934

Post by jeremyklammer »

_acco wrote: post #933
molszanski wrote: post #926

If anyone thinks we can build SAFE superintelligence, I think they are wrong. I highly, highly recommend this book "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_Dang... It has one of the highest information and idea density per paragraph I've read. And it is full good ideas. Honestly, reading any discussion or reasoning about AGI / Safe AGI is kinda pointless after that.…

His reasoning is very flawed and this book is responsible for a lot of needless consternation. We don’t know how human intelligence works. We don’t have designs or even a philosophy for AGI. Yet, the Bostrom view is that our greatest invention will just suddenly "emerge" (unlike every other human invention). And that you can have "AGI" (hand-wavy) without having all the other stuff that human intelligence comes along…

Your comment is BAD!

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#935

Post by [deleted] »

appplication wrote: post #243
dougb5 wrote: post #125

> Building safe superintelligence (SSI) is the most important technical problem of our time. Call me a cranky old man but the superlatives in these sorts of announcements really annoy me. I want to ask: Have you surveyed every problem in the world? Are you aware of how much suffering there is outside of your office and how unresponsive it has been so far to improvements in artificial intelligence? Are you really sayi…

It’s amazing how someone so smart can be so naive. I do understand conceptually the idea that if we create intelligence greater than our own that we could struggle to control it. But does anyone have any meaningful thoughts on how this plays out? I hear our industry thought leaders clamoring over this but not a single actual concrete idea of what this means in practice. We have no idea what the fundamental architectu…

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#936

Post by antihipocrat »

Blammar wrote: post #812
antihipocrat wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a massive attractor of investment funding. Is it proven to be massively profitable?

I read in Forbes about a construction company that used AI-related tech to manage the logistics and planning. They claimed that they were saving upwards of 20% of their costs because everything was managed more accurately. (Maybe they had little control boxes on their workers too; I don't know.) The point I am trying to make is that the benefits of AI-related tech is likely to be quite pervasive and we should be look…

Right, maybe it can improve the productivity of companies that are operating below the mean.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#937

Post by bbor »

chrisldgk wrote: post #786
bbor wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, an entire industry of researchers, which used to be divided, is now uniting around calls to slow development and emphasize safety (like, “dissolve companies” emphasis not “write employee handbooks” emphasis). They’re saying, more-or-less in unison, that GPT3 was an unexpected breakthrough in the Frame Problem, based on Judea Pearl’s prescient predictions. If we agree on that, there are two options: 1. They’ve a…

I‘d say there’s a third option - anyone working in the space realized they can make a fuckton of money if they just say how „dangerous“ the product is, because not only is it great marketing to talk do that, but you might also get literal trillions of dollars from the government if you do it right. I don’t have anything against researchers, and I agree I know a lot less about AI than they do. I do however know humans…

This is well reasoned, and certainly happens, but I definitely think there’s strong evidence that there are, in fact, true believers. Yudkowsky and Hinton for one, but in general the shape of the trend is “rich engineers leave big companies because of ethical issues”. As you can probably guess, that is not a wise economic decision for the individual!

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#938

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #842
roywiggins wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without business incentives, the military advantages of AI would inventivize governments to develop it anyway, like they did with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are inherently unsafe, there are some safeguards around them, but they are ultimately dangerous weapons.

Dangerous weapons are not inherently unsafe. Take a Glock, for example. It is a deadly weapon, designed for one thing and one thing alone. It is, however, one of the safest machines ever built.

[deleted]

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#939

Post by ldjkfkdsjnv »

raydev wrote: post #233
kccqzy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two people I knew recently left Google to join OpenAI. They were solid L5 engineers on the verge of being promoted to L6, and their TC is now $900k. And they are not even doing AI research, just general backend infra. You don't need to be gifted, just good. And of course I can't really fault them for joining a company for the purpose of optimizing TC.

> their TC is now $900k As a community we should stop throwing numbers around like this when more than half of this number is speculative. You shouldn't be able to count it as "total compensation" unless you are compensated.

You have no idea what youre talking about

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#940

Post by whimsicalism »

CRConrad wrote: post #920
whimsicalism wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am very skeptical of narratives saying that young boys or men are more misogynistic than in the past. we have a cognitive bias towards thinking the past is better than it was, but specifically on gender issues i just do not buy a regression

> i am very skeptical of narratives saying that young boys or men are more misogynistic than in the past. They don't even have to be more misogynistic than in the past for there to be a detrimental effect. Because so many other things in society -- pre-school and school environments, upbringing by more enlightened parents than what those parents themselves had, etc etc[1] -- cooperate to make young men and boys less…

Maybe in the US context. In the global context I think social media is almost certainly net anti-sexist compared to the attitudes parents are passing down.
Post reply on HN