5 ms·
>>"We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect
by otoburb 9y ago
>>"We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that _safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future_, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research."
This seems like the key disclosure statement. I never reconciled how sharing A[G]I techniques with the general public increases AI safety in the long-term; now we know OpenAI has also come to the same conclusion.
- rasmi 9y agoTo me this doesn't mean "Sharing traditional AI research is dangerous," but rather "Our efforts may be best spent on less popular topics such as safety, policy, and standards research, so you may see us do less traditional AI research." This seems in line with their stated goals around safety.
- jimrandomh 9y agoI interpret it as saying that they don't think sharing current AI research is dangerous, but they're keeping the option of withholding research open in anticipation of the possibility that could change. (This is what I and others argued they should do in 2015: https://conceptspacecartography.com/openai-should-hold-off-on-choosing-tactics/ https://conceptspacecartography.com/openai-should-hold-off-o... )
- sanxiyn 9y agoNo, this is wrong. To quote: "To be effective at addressing AGI's impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities -- policy and safety advocacy alone would be insufficient." OpenAI definitely don't plan to do less traditional AI research. What they plan to do is to publish less.
- heurist 9y agoI disagree with the premise. AI isn't like a nuclear warhead. It's not a machine for pure destruction. AI can be used as much to generate welfare as to damage - it's all in the application. Sharing methods benefits at least as much as it could hurt.
- FeepingCreature 9y agoI think it can be used as much to generate welfare as destruction when it goes right, but the cases where it goes wrong are both plentiful and heavily biased towards destruction.
- dsacco 9y agoWhat are a few examples of those cases, exactly?
- s2g 9y agoTerminator, 2001, I Robot, ... oh wait you probably meant in reality. sorry. edit: Oh and how could I forget the Matrix. Which of course we all totally live in.
- Robotbeat 9y agoBefore nuclear weapons were built, the only examples of their large-scale destruction were in fiction. The World Set Free by H.G. Wells is the main example I can think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free It got some of the details wrong (i.e. the atomic bombs exploded over a long period of time vs instantly), but the consequences were fairly accurate. If you're going to wait until all the actual details and examples happen in reality, then it's too late to have much insight, especially if we're talking about something capable of self-replication like a virus or artificial intelligence. The nature of the problem REQUIRES anticipation instead of mere reaction.
- dsacco 9y agoThis is survivorship bias. How many weapons of mass destruction have been foretold by science fiction that have never been invented? More generally, how much technology has been written about in science fiction that we have only the faintest hope of ever achieving?
- s2g 9y agoYou're right, we should lock up the information in the hands of a few billionaires.
- s1dechnl 9y agoI never understood why it was any different or why they attempted to compel others to 'dump everything they had publicly'. No one who comes across something as powerful as AGI is going to think : Yeah, why don't I just publish everything about it. A maturity step has seemingly occurred post funding