961–970 of 1001 posts
> 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/
Tel Aviv? Sounds super trustworthy
Reminds me of OpenAI being the most closed AI company out there. Not even talking about them having "safe" and "Israel" in the same sentence, how antonymic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
> The same arguments have been made about the internet and other technological advances, and yet, inequality has _grown_ sharply in the past 50 years.
The internet has enabled remote work, online education, and access to information that was previously unavailable to many. Smartphones, once luxury items, are now widely available and have become essential tools for economic participation in many parts of the world.
> So no, "trickle down technologies", just like "trickle down economics", does not work.
It's crucial to distinguish between zero-sum and positive-sum dynamics. While relative wealth inequality has indeed grown, overall absolute global poverty has decreased significantly.
When a new technology or medicine is invented is everyone everywhere automatically entitled to it? Even if this slows down more such inventions? Because equality matters more than growth of overall prosperity? Would you prefer to be alive at a random time in history centuries ago, a random life where there is less technology and less inequality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 acce…
You can question the role of nukes as peacekeepers but I think the case for nuclear deterrence keeping the peace is strong. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely credited as a key factor in preventing direct conflict between superpowers during the Cold War. The presence of nuclear weapons forced them to pursue competition through economic, cultural, and technological means rather than direct military confrontation. “Race to the moon” being one such result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Conscious entity... willpower I don't know what that means. Why should they matter? > Self preservation This is no more than a fine-tuning for the task, even with current models. > I worry about dangerous humans with the power of gods, not... There's no property of the universe that you only have one thing to worry about at a time. So worrying about risk 'A' does not in any way allow us to dismiss risks 'B' through…
Because people talking about AGI and superintelligence most likely are thinking of something like Skynet.
Without using the words 'conscious', 'sentient', 'AGI', or 'intelligence' what do you think about the future capabilities of LM AI and their implications for us humans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 truth. The problem is not just governments, I am concerned about large organized crime organizations and corporations also. I think I am on the losing side here, but my hopes are all for open source, open weights, and effective AI assistants that make peoples’ jobs easier and lives better. I would also like to see more effort shifted from LLMs back to RL, DL, and research on new ideas and approaches.
> I am concerned about large organized crime organizations and corporations also In my favorite dystopia, some megacorp secretly reaches ASI, which then takes over control of the corporation, blindsiding even the CEO and the board. Officially, the ASI may be running an industrial complex that designs and produces ever more sophisticated humanoid robots, that are increasingly able to do any kind of manual labor, and e…
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…
Should read *has brought*. As in the present perfect tense, since we are still on the brink of annihilation, more so than we have been at any time in the last 60 years.
The difference between then and now is that we just don't talk about it much anymore and seem to have tacitly accepted this state of affairs.
> 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/
even more ironic is that no one replying to such comments
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no "superintelligence" or "AGI" There is intelligence. The LLM current state-of-the-art technology produces output analog to natural intelligences. This things are already intelligent. Saying that LLMs aren't producing "intelligence" is like saying planes actually don't fly because they are not flapping their wings like birds. If you run fast enough, you'll end flying at some point. Maybe "intelligence" is…
> There is intelligence. There isn't > Maybe "intelligence" is just enough statistics and pattern prediction, till the point you just say "this thing is intelligent". Even the most stupid people can usually ask questions and correct their answers. LLMs are incapable of that. They can regurgitate data and spew a lot of generated bullshit, some of which is correct. Doesn't make them intelligent. Here's a prime example…
The way the current interface for most models works can result in this kind of output, the quality of the output - not even in the latests models - doesn't necessarily reflects the fidelity of the world model inside the LLM nor the level of insight it can have about a given topic ("what is the etymology of the word cat").
The current usual approach is "one shot", you've got one shot at the prompt, then return your output, no seconds thoughts allowed, no recursion at all. I think this could be a trade-off to get the cheapest most feasible good answer, mostly because the models get to output reasonably good answers most of the time. But then you get a percentage of hallucinations and made up stuff.
That kind of output could be - in a lab - fully absent actually. Did you you notice that the prompt interfaces never gives and empty or half-empty answer? "I don't know", "I don't know for sure", "I kinda know, but it's probably a bit shaky answer", or "I could answer this, but I'd need to google some additional data before", etc.
There's another one, almost never, you get to be asked back by the model, but the models can actually chat with you about complex topics related to your prompt. It's obvious when you're chatting with some chatbot, but not that obvious when you're asking it for a given answer for a complex topic.
In a lab, with recursion enabled, the models could get the true answers probably most of the time, including the fabulous "I don't know". And they could get the chance to ask back as an allowed answer, asking for additional human input, relaying on a live RHLF right there (it's quite technically feasible to achieve, not economically sound if you have a public prompt GUI facing the whole planet inputs).
but it wouldn't make much economic sense to make public a prompt interface like that.
I think it could also have a really heavy impact in the public opinion if they get to see a model that never makes a mistake, because it can answer "I don't know" or can ask you back to get some extra details about your prompt, so there you have another reason to do not make prompts that way.