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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#981

Post by CRConrad »

czl wrote: post #882
CRConrad wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a valid concern that AI technology could potentially exacerbate inequality, it's not a foregone conclusion. No, but looking at how most technological advance throughout history as at least initially (and here I mean not "for the first few weeks", but "for the first few centutries") exacerbated inequality rather massively, it seems not far off. > In fact, the widespread adoption of AI might actually help reduce…

> … your post feels frighteningly Pollyannaish Your comment was bleak so I supplied a counterpoint. My view is that new technology itself is not inherently unequal - it can widen or narrow gaps depending on how it is developed, regulated, and deployed.

That wasn't my comment, AFAICS. I think the one you replied to was my first in this sub-thread.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#982

Post by ctxc »

pedrosorio wrote: post #679
ctxc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too snarky...anyway, "crack" means "exceptional" in some contexts. I've seen footballers using it a lot over the years (Neymar, Messi etc) fwiw. Just realized - we even say "it's not all its cracked up to be" as a negative statement which would imply "cracked up" is positive.

> I've seen footballers using it a lot over the years (Neymar, Messi etc) fwiw. The word "craque" in Portuguese was borrowed from English with the "exceptional" definition and is commonly used. Given how many Brazilian players there are in the top leagues, I wouldn't be surprised if it was commonly used by football players in general.

Makes sense, thank you! :D

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#983

Post by CRConrad »

mdp2021 wrote: post #891
CRConrad wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we value what has Worth as a collective treasure, and the more Value is produced the better ... So, yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality: very welcome. Except that's not how we value the "worth" of something. If "Art, and Thought, and Judgement" -- be they of "Superior quality" or not -- could be produced by machines, they'd be worth a heck of…

> Except that's not how we value the "worth" of something In that case, are you sure your evaluation is proper? If a masterpiece is there, and it /is/ a masterpiece (beyond appearances), why would its source change its nature and quality? > Come to think of it, hasn't that process already begun? Please present relevant examples: I have already observed in the past that simulations of the art made by X cannot just loo…

> E.g. "This action is good, but what is Good?".

Faking thinking isn't “Thinking”. Art is supposed to have some thought behind it; therefore, “art” created by faking thinking isn't “Art”. Should be utterly fucking obvious.

> Platonic terms - the Ideas in the Hyperuranium.

Oh my god, couldn't you please try to come off as a bit more pretentious? You're only tying yourself into knots with that bullshit; see your failure to recognise the simple truth above. Remember: KISS!

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#986

Post by istjohn »

sneak wrote: post #944
CRConrad wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The homicide rate in the U.S. is triple that of other G7 countries.[0]

0. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1374211/g7-country-homic...

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#987

Post by CRConrad »

cwillu wrote: post #266
frenchie4111 wrote: post #14

I 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?

There's a reason OpenAI had this as part of its charter: “We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions. Therefore, if a value-aligned, safety-conscious project comes close to building AGI before we do, we commit to stop competing with and start assisting this project. We will work out specifics in case-by-case agreements, but a typical trig…

Operative word there seems to be had.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#988

Post by CRConrad »

sgd99 wrote: post #168
klankbrouwerij wrote: post #162

SSI, a very interesting name for a company advancing AI! "Solid State Intelligence" or SSI was also the name of the malevolent entity described in the biography of John C. Lilly [0][1]. It was a network of "computers" (computation-capable solid state systems) that was first engineered by humans and then developed into something autonomous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly [1] http://johnclilly.com/

SSI, here is "Safe SuperIntelligence Inc."

Participating in the discussion on this page, the GP presumably knew that. They were talking about what it means for them.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#989

Post by CRConrad »

m3kw9 wrote: post #455
tiarafawn wrote: post #403

If superintelligence can be achieved, I'm pessimistic about the safe part. - Sandboxing an intelligence greater than your own seems like an impossible task as the superintelligence could potentially come up with completely novel attack vectors the designers never thought of. Even if the SSI's only interface to the outside world is an air gapped text-based terminal in an underground bunker, it might use advanced psych…

Why do people always think that a superintelligent being will always be destructive/evil to US? I rather have the opposite view where if you are really intelligent, you don’t see things as a zero sum game

> Why do people always think that a superintelligent being will always be destructive/evil to US?

I don't think most people are saying it necessarily has to be. Quite bad enough that there's a significant chance that it might be, AFAICS.

> I rather have the opposite view where if you are really intelligent, you don’t see things as a zero sum game

That's what you see with your limited intelligence. No no, I'm not saying I disagree; on the contrary, I quite agree. But that's what I see with my limited intelligence.

What do we know about how some hypothetical (so far, hopefully) supreintelligence would see it? By definition, we can't know anything about that. Because of our (comparatively) limited intelligence.

Could well be that we're wrong, and something that's "really intelligent" sees it the opposite way.

Re: Safe Superintelligence Inc.

#990

Post by CRConrad »

quesera wrote: post #618
stoniejohnson wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the common line of thinking here is that it won't be actively antagonist to , rather it will have goals that are orthogonal to ours. Since it is superintelligent, and we are not, it will achieve its goals and we will not be able to achieve ours. This is a big deal because a lot of our goals maintain the overall homeostasis of our species, which is delicate! If this doesn't make sense, here is an ungrounded, n…

I think this is the easiest kind of scenario to refute. The interface between a superintelligent AI and the physical world is a) optional, and b) tenuous. If people agree that creating weird concrete structures is not beneficial, the AI will be starved of the resources necessary to do so, even if it cannot be diverted. The challenge comes when these weird concrete structures are useful to a narrow group of people who…

> The interface between a superintelligent AI and the physical world is a) optional, and b) tenuous.

To begin with. Going forward, only if we make sure it remains so. Given the apparently overwhelming incentives to flood the online world with this sh...tuff already, what's to say there won't be forces -- people, corporations, nation-states -- working hard to make that interface as robust as possible?

Post reply on HN