Do you find the name "Safe Superintelligence" to be an instance of virtue signalling? Why or why not?
You are describing “branding”.
Then it's an example of branding that's not unpalatable to you.
Safe Superintelligence Inc.
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#942Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end game, a "non-safe" superinteligence seems easier to create, so like any other technology, some people will create it (even if just because they can't make it safe). And in a world with multiple superintelligent agents, how can the safe ones "win"? It seems like a safe AI is at inherent disadvantage for survival.
The current intelligences of the world (us) have organized their civilization in a way that the conforming members of society are the norm and criminals the outcasts. Certainly not a perfect system, but something along those lines for the most part. I like to think AGIs will decide to do that too.
Considering the U.S. is likely to have a convicted felon as its next president, I don't agree with this characterization
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s harder than we thought so we leveraged machine learning to grow it, rather than creating it symbolically. The leaps in the last 5 years are far beyond anything in the prior half century, and make predictions of near term AGI much more than a “boy who cries wolf” scenario to anyone really paying attention. I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows. It just seems to be whining that text and art generati…
> I don’t understand how your second paragraph follows. It just seems to be whining that text and art generative models are easier than a fully fledged servant humanoid, which seems like a natural consequence of training data availability and deployment cost. No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work,…
> No, it's pointing out that "text and art generative models" are far less useful [1] than machines that would be just as little smarter at boring ordinary work, to relieve real normal people from drudgery.
That makes no sense. Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes? The past decades of machine learning have revealed that the visual-spatial capacities that are commonplace to humans are difficult to replicate artificially. This doesn't mean the things which AI can do well are necessarily less useful than the simple hand-eye coordination that are beyond their current means. Intelligence and usefulness isn't a single dimension.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The very existence of dangerous weapons, be they nukes or handguns (or swords or tanks), makes the world less of a safe place than if they didn't exist. Existence is pretty much the most inherent attribute anything can have, AFAICS, so yes: Dangerous weapons are inherently unsafe. (Take that Glock, for example -- that's exactly the problem, that someone can take it. Might be someone who knows how to remove the safety…
> makes the world less of a safe place than if they didn't exist
This is false. Handguns and other small arms, for example, cause a reduction in violence as they proliferate through society, due to the fact that the use of force is not the exclusive purview of the physically strong.
There's a reason police in most places carry guns, and it's not to shoot people; it's to keep people from punching the cops in the face. Nuclear weapons have vastly (and I do mean vastly) reduced mass deaths in world wars since their invention.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#945Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? If not, then they're not relevant to the issue. I'm not saying nothing else good happened in the past 70 years, but rather that the invention of atomic weapons has permanently placed humanity in a position in which it had never been before: the possibility of wiping out much of the planet, averted only thanks to treaties, Stanislav Petrov[0]…
> Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? If not, then they're not relevant to the issue. I think so, yes. Resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible, because there are multiple actors who have the same power. Everyone having nuclear weapons ensured that no one wanted a war between the big powers, so resources were allocated in other areas as the big powers tried t…
I would argue that the presence of nukes increased rather than decreased military spending. since nuclear war was not an option, the nukes being only a deterrent, big powers had to continue investing heavily in their conventional forces in order to gain or keep an upper hand.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? If not, then they're not relevant to the issue. I'm not saying nothing else good happened in the past 70 years, but rather that the invention of atomic weapons has permanently placed humanity in a position in which it had never been before: the possibility of wiping out much of the planet, averted only thanks to treaties, Stanislav Petrov[0]…
> Were any of these big achievements side effects of creating nuclear weapons? The cold aspect of the Cold War was an achievement. Any doubt this was due to creation of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use? How do you think countries will behave if every country faces being wiped out if it makes war on another country? To prevent catastrophe I think teaching your citizens to hate other groups (as is done today…
The Cold War doesn’t mean there was no conflict. Both sides supported various proxy wars around the world. They just did not enter into _direct_ military conflict with each other. That may be because they had nukes but it could also be that direct conflict would mean massive casualties for either side and it’s not like either side wanted to destroy the other, just gain the upper hand globally.
So I for one don’t accept the argument that nukes acted as “peacekeepers”.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#947I am not on the bleeding edge of this stuff. I wonder though: How could a safe super intelligence out compete an unrestricted one? Assuming another company exists (maybe OpenAI) that is tackling the same goal without spending the cycles on safety, what chance do they have to compete?
The goal of this company likely wouldn’t be to win against OpenAI, but to play its own game, even if much lesser
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#948I understand the concern that a "superintelligence" will emerge that will escape its bounds and threaten humanity. That is a risk. My bigger, and more pressing worry, is that a "superintelligence" will emerge that does not escape its bounds, and the question will be which humans control it. Look no further than history to see what happens when humans acquire great power. The "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brough…
the nazi regime made great use of punch cards and data crunching for their logistics i would hate to have seen them with a superintelligent AI at their disposal
I wonder what the North Koreans would do with it.
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#949My naive prediction is there will be an extreme swing back into “reality” once everyone starts assuming the whole internet is just LLMs interacting with each other. Just like how there’s a shift towards private group chats, with trusted members only, rather than open forums.
I would love for this to be the case. The internet is probably 50% bots already as it is, except no one realizes it
Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.
#950> We are an American company with offices in Palo Alto and Tel Aviv, where we have deep roots and the ability to recruit top technical talent.
The irony of pitching "safe super intelligence" while opening offices in a country that is suspected of using AI to bomb a population trapped in a ghetto, as reported by their own investigative journalists: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/