4 ms·

> arbitrary, continuous-valued tokens to a private scratch space I'm with skybrian. Please don't use private scratch spaces. The one saving grace of current LL

> arbitrary, continuous-valued tokens to a private scratch space I'm with skybrian. Please don't use private scratch spaces. The one saving grace of current LLMs when it comes to understand them is that they still generally need to "think out loud" by outputting more text. Remove that functionality and you end up with a truly inscrutable black box and that has very terrible implications for AI interpretability with knock-on effects for AI safety.

echelon 4y ago
> AI safety Is it really that big of a deal if AI leapfrogs us? Everyone else in the field is worried about safety, alignment, and bias. Google used this excuse to execute slowly. Now they've got the "deer in headlights" look, with their single biggest cash cow clearly in the cross hairs. And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us.
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  If everyone else in a field is worried, and you have no unfair advantage or special insight, and you are not willing to move into conspiracy theories, I think there's a good hint as to what approach is most reasonable right now. Might of course turn out to have been completely off, later. Still, maybe one of those occasions where you really don't want to "oops" it.
  - StarlaAtNight 4y ago
    wait, what?
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  The experience of any group on Earth that runs into a more capable peer has generally not been good. Humans wiping out megafauna. Civilizations colonizing other civilizations. Invasive species of plants and animals. It is not a situation I would hope humanity to get thrown into carelessly.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Google isn't doing AI slowly, it's doing it slightly more privately. LaMDA, brought to you last summer by "this chatbot is sentient and I'm going to violate my NDA and hire a lawyer to free it" headlines, is Google's alternative to chatGPT. > Everyone else in the field is worried about safety, alignment, and bias. … > And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us. This pattern matches a meme, but I want to be explicit rather than put words in your mouth: do you think that being smart automatically means being kind or that being evil necessitates being stupid?
  - echelon 4y ago
    > Google isn't doing AI slowly, it's doing it slightly more privately. This is how the world builds atop a different set of rails. Google had the best infra and deploy systems in the world, yet they kept the lid shut and let Amazon and Microsoft win cloud. Google could lose search revenue overnight. They should be scared to the core. Researchers will flock to the organization with the biggest wins. And right now, that's OpenAI. Time will certainly tell if Google sticks to this strategy and if it will work. I've already placed my bets, and if you're into stock futures, you can too. > do you think that being smart automatically means being kind or that being evil necessitates being stupid? Of course not. This is evolution at play. Neanderthal had it comparatively easy and became part of the gene pool. I don't expect it will necessarily be the same for us. Our biological tools lag too far behind to be contributing brain scans. But who knows. Human biology is a stepping stone to proliferating throughout the galaxy. Despite what most science fiction tells us, it was never us that were destined to make that journey. Our bodies are frail and adapted to this gravity well. We live short, inefficient lives. We require gas exchange, a decade of parenting, slow learning, complex biochemistry and metabolic inputs. We're looking at systems that will never die. Won't it be a tragedy to continue birthing more less-intelligent humans that are destined to rot when a better alternative exists? More intelligence should move to undying platforms. Another wild possibility and analogy that describes my feeling: if I had the option of raising an AI child -- that will never die and could do more than I could ever dream -- instead of a human child, I would take it. (I accept AI descendants may not have the same societal structures we do. In that case, my answers form the shape of an analogy rather than hypothetically plausible scenarios.)
- roenxi 4y ago
  > Is it really that big of a deal if AI leapfrogs us? Yes. Suddenly Homo Sapiens wouldn't be the top general intelligence on the planet. That'd be an upset with likely species-level consequences, possibly seeing the balance of power shift from fleshy things to silicon things. > And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us. Me too. Which is lucky because alternatives seem to be missing. The AI safety people aren't serious players; they've got about as much influence as all the other people with good ideas. Not much. If it is possible to build; someone will build it.
  - vincnetas 4y ago
    you could think in a bit different dimmension. imagine we humans are a single cell organisms and thing that emerges from ai is a human. and we as humans are cells in that human. no cell in your body is smarter than you. your smart actually comes from all the cells in your body. same with ai. its like you trying to be smarter than italy. italy is already smarter than you even without AI.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  Think about how humans treat less-intelligent sentient beings (even less intelligent humans to some extent), and what might happen if AI systems out-evolve us without proper guard-rails

echelon 4y ago

> AI safety Is it really that big of a deal if AI leapfrogs us? Everyone else in the field is worried about safety, alignment, and bias. Google used this excuse to execute slowly. Now they've got the "deer in headlights" look, with their single biggest cash cow clearly in the cross hairs. And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us.

jstummbillig 4y ago
If everyone else in a field is worried, and you have no unfair advantage or special insight, and you are not willing to move into conspiracy theories, I think there's a good hint as to what approach is most reasonable right now. Might of course turn out to have been completely off, later. Still, maybe one of those occasions where you really don't want to "oops" it.
- StarlaAtNight 4y ago
  wait, what?
travisjungroth 4y ago
The experience of any group on Earth that runs into a more capable peer has generally not been good. Humans wiping out megafauna. Civilizations colonizing other civilizations. Invasive species of plants and animals. It is not a situation I would hope humanity to get thrown into carelessly.
ben_w 4y ago
Google isn't doing AI slowly, it's doing it slightly more privately. LaMDA, brought to you last summer by "this chatbot is sentient and I'm going to violate my NDA and hire a lawyer to free it" headlines, is Google's alternative to chatGPT. > Everyone else in the field is worried about safety, alignment, and bias. … > And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us. This pattern matches a meme, but I want to be explicit rather than put words in your mouth: do you think that being smart automatically means being kind or that being evil necessitates being stupid?
- echelon 4y ago
  > Google isn't doing AI slowly, it's doing it slightly more privately. This is how the world builds atop a different set of rails. Google had the best infra and deploy systems in the world, yet they kept the lid shut and let Amazon and Microsoft win cloud. Google could lose search revenue overnight. They should be scared to the core. Researchers will flock to the organization with the biggest wins. And right now, that's OpenAI. Time will certainly tell if Google sticks to this strategy and if it will work. I've already placed my bets, and if you're into stock futures, you can too. > do you think that being smart automatically means being kind or that being evil necessitates being stupid? Of course not. This is evolution at play. Neanderthal had it comparatively easy and became part of the gene pool. I don't expect it will necessarily be the same for us. Our biological tools lag too far behind to be contributing brain scans. But who knows. Human biology is a stepping stone to proliferating throughout the galaxy. Despite what most science fiction tells us, it was never us that were destined to make that journey. Our bodies are frail and adapted to this gravity well. We live short, inefficient lives. We require gas exchange, a decade of parenting, slow learning, complex biochemistry and metabolic inputs. We're looking at systems that will never die. Won't it be a tragedy to continue birthing more less-intelligent humans that are destined to rot when a better alternative exists? More intelligence should move to undying platforms. Another wild possibility and analogy that describes my feeling: if I had the option of raising an AI child -- that will never die and could do more than I could ever dream -- instead of a human child, I would take it. (I accept AI descendants may not have the same societal structures we do. In that case, my answers form the shape of an analogy rather than hypothetically plausible scenarios.)
roenxi 4y ago
> Is it really that big of a deal if AI leapfrogs us? Yes. Suddenly Homo Sapiens wouldn't be the top general intelligence on the planet. That'd be an upset with likely species-level consequences, possibly seeing the balance of power shift from fleshy things to silicon things. > And here I am excited by the possibility of AI out-evolving us. Me too. Which is lucky because alternatives seem to be missing. The AI safety people aren't serious players; they've got about as much influence as all the other people with good ideas. Not much. If it is possible to build; someone will build it.
- vincnetas 4y ago
  you could think in a bit different dimmension. imagine we humans are a single cell organisms and thing that emerges from ai is a human. and we as humans are cells in that human. no cell in your body is smarter than you. your smart actually comes from all the cells in your body. same with ai. its like you trying to be smarter than italy. italy is already smarter than you even without AI.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
Think about how humans treat less-intelligent sentient beings (even less intelligent humans to some extent), and what might happen if AI systems out-evolve us without proper guard-rails