3 ms·
I've studied the latest AI techniques academically for a few cumulative years. I didn't perceive AI as an existential threat to human civilization (on the scale
by gen220 4y ago
I've studied the latest AI techniques academically for a few cumulative years. I didn't perceive AI as an existential threat to human civilization (on the scale of nuclear weapons, climate change, etc.).
I thought "AI alignment" was an unsolvable problem because the premise (sentient AI) didn't make sense to me.
A series of posts [e.g. 1] shared here over the weekend caused me to shift my priors, to the point where I believe the reality we're in is actually near-term scary.
I still don't think sentient AI is a threat to human civilization.
To me, it seems the existential threat is a combination of (1) the preponderance of leaky security methods practiced over the history of the internet hitherto (2) granting very powerful models like ChatGPT control of a linux shell (3) malicious people prompting ChatGPT to do malicious things.
IMO, ChatGPT becoming sentient and using that for its own enrichment is not the primary existential threat. Rather, it's a sociopathic human directing some ChatGPT-esque system in a way indistinguishable from a sentient & malicious SkyNet.
In short, I think powerful general-purpose AI is an existential threat large enough that we might not be around long enough to invent "sentient" AI (which may not be possible to create).
As we've seen over the weekend, there is no human-devised alignment solution that can keep out other motivated humans. I think the only solution might be to turn the whole thing (networked armaments & infrastructure) "off" from an IT point of view. Disarm ourselves as a society, or at least keep our arms as far away from packet-switchers as we can.
Until now, "cyber-attacks" on infrastructure been limited by nation-state level persistence, ingenuity, focus, resources, and accountability to civilians. The prospect of there being an order of magnitude of power/focus beyond those constraints is what's concerning to me. Our defense infrastructure is not prepared for humans directing ChatGPT-formed botnets and red teams that can be operated by anybody with a mildly technical background.
[1]: https://zacdenham.com/blog/narrative-manipulation-convincing-gpt-chat-to-write-a-python-program-to-eradicate-humanity https://zacdenham.com/blog/narrative-manipulation-convincing...
- casebash 4y agoGiven that you've already updated your views recently, perhaps you'd be open to reconsidering whether AI could form an existential risk? One of the best talks (but more technical talks) I've seen on this topic is Evan Hubringer's "How likely is deceptive alignment". https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/A9NxPTwbw6r6Awuwt/how-likely-is-deceptive-alignment https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/A9NxPTwbw6r6Awuwt/how-l... It may also be worthwhile checking out the Rob Miles video on the Orthogonality Thesis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEUO6pjwFOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEUO6pjwFOo
- gen220 4y agoI'm definitely open to the belief that sentient AI, "left to its own devices", might pose an existential risk. I guess what I'm trying to communicate, is that I don't think one has to buy the idea that we're anywhere close close to producing Sentient AI (which some people believe is impossible), in order to have a rational fear of the existential risk posed by "unaligned" humans that are assisted by powerful-but-not-sentient AI. My new understanding is that, AI sentience is not a precondition for AI-induced existential risk. Pre-Sentient AI already gives us plenty of existential rope to hang ourselves with.