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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#951

Post by goatlover »

dchichkov wrote: post #791
dreamcompiler wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI is still a long way off. The history of AI goes back 65 years and there have been probably a dozen episodes where people said "AGI is right around the corner" because some program did something surprising and impressive. It always turns out human intelligence is much, much harder than we think it is. I saw a tweet the other day that sums up the current situation perfectly: "I don't need AI to paint pictures and w…

Well, copilots do precisely that, no? Or you talking folding literal laundry, in which case this is more of a robotics problem, not the ASI, right? You don't need ASI to fold laundry, you do need to achieve reliable, safe and cost efficient robotics deployments. These are different problems.

You wouldn't get close to ASI before laundry problem had been solved.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#952

Post by GOD_Over_Djinn »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #943
CRConrad wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 commonplac…

> Is alphafold less useful than a minimum wage worker because alphafold can't do dishes?

To the average person, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#953

Post by goatlover »

ridiculous_leke wrote: post #790
insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I 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 "cold war" nuclear arms race, which brought the world to the brink of (at least partial) annihilation, is a good recent example. The same era saw big achievements like first human in space, eradication of smallpox, peaceful nuclear exploration etc. It's good to be a skeptic but history does favor the optimists for the most part.

We'll see what the next 100 years or history brings. The nuclear war threat hasn't gone away either. There's always a chance those nukes get used at some point.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#954

Post by goatlover »

RGamma wrote: post #916
rvnx wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a note, you used Gandhi as a personification of "good", and one day I did the same mistake; Gandhi is actually a quite controversial person, knowing for sleeping with young women, while telling their husbands that they shouldn't be around.

Same with Buddhism being an uncompromisingly peaceful religion...

Makes one a little hesitant on how well alignment can work with AIs.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#955

Post by rowanG077 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #756
insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I 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…

AGI is still a long way off. The history of AI goes back 65 years and there have been probably a dozen episodes where people said "AGI is right around the corner" because some program did something surprising and impressive. It always turns out human intelligence is much, much harder than we think it is. I saw a tweet the other day that sums up the current situation perfectly: "I don't need AI to paint pictures and w…

That statement is extremely short sighted. You don't need AI to do laundry and dishes. You need expensive robotics. in fact both already exist in a cheapened form. A laundry machine and a dishwasher. They already take 90% of the work out of it.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#956

Post by dontreact »

imbusy111 wrote: post #38
dontreact wrote: post #4

How are they gonna pay for their compute costs to get the frontier? Seems hard to attract enough investment while almost explicitly promising no return.

What if there are other ways to improve intelligence other than throw more money at running gradient descent algorithm?

Perhaps. But also throwing more flops at it has long been Ilya’s approach so it would be surprising. Notice also the reference to scale (“scale in peace”).

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#957

Post by insane_dreamer »

czl wrote: post #857
gmuslera wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know if that superintelligence will be safe or not. But as long as we are in the mix, the combination is unsafe. At the very least, because it will expand the inequality. But probably there are deeper reasons, things that make that combination of words an absurd. Or it will be abused, or the reason that it is not is that it wasn't so unsafe after all.

> At the very least, because it will expand the inequality. It's a valid concern that AI technology could potentially exacerbate inequality, it's not a foregone conclusion. In fact, the widespread adoption of AI might actually help reduce inequality in several ways: If AI technology becomes more affordable and accessible, it could help level the playing field by providing people from all backgrounds with powerful too…

The same arguments have been made about the internet and other technological advances, and yet, inequality has _grown_ sharply in the past 50 years. So no, "trickle down technologies", just like "trickle down economics", does not work.

https://rwer.wordpress.com/2018/05/18/income-inequality-1970...

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#958

Post by emanhig »

devsda wrote: post #361
insane_dreamer wrote: post #66

I 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…

All the current hype about AGI feels as if we are in a Civ game where we are on the verge of researching and unlocking an AI tech tree that gives the player huge chance at "tech victory" (whatever that means in the real world). I doubt it will turn out that way. It will take a while and in the meantime I think we need one of those handy "are we xyz yet?" pages that tracks the rust lang's progress on several aspects b…

https://lifearchitect.ai/agi/

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#959

Post by Tr3nton »

CRConrad wrote: post #917
sneak wrote: post #842

Earlier 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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN