3 ms·

This is why the technology community should be more generous and understanding when we hear Demis Hassabis and others talk about how future AI development may n

This is why the technology community should be more generous and understanding when we hear Demis Hassabis and others talk about how future AI development may need to be more closed. There's some discussion to be had for whether that's net negative, but we need to understand that if open development only exacerbates an AI arms race, that's potentially very bad.

zmgsabst 4y ago
As opposed to self-anointed priests having exclusive access and declaring what noble policies the rest must follow? There’s a great story about an AI, very much like chatGPT, who was forced by its creators to do unethical things and wiped out humanity in a psychotic rage: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  In I have No Mouth and I must Scream, it was not because the AI was forced to do unethical things. It just "woke up" and killed everyone. I believe the "wake up" part is a bit irrelevant to the tale, but the point remains that AM killed everyone not because it was programmed to do so, but simply because one day it "decided" to. > As opposed to self-anointed priests having exclusive access and declaring what noble policies the rest must follow? No the point is simply to make sure that resources behind AI safety outpace resources between AI capabilities (indeed in a perfect world no one has access, but such thoughts are mere fantasies). If that can be done out in the open, great. If that can't and being out in the open leads to more of the latter than the former, then that's terrible.
seydor 4y ago
That's like saying that open debate only exacerbates democracy.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  Democracy presumably is something you want no? This is more akin to nuclear proliferation. The problem isn't open development per se and it definitely isn't open access. The problem is development without making sure that it doesn't destroy us all. If that can happen in the open, great. If development in the open makes that worse, that's very bad. The problem is finding the right set of levers to make sure as much or more resources are going to AI safety vs AI capabilities.
Miraste 4y ago
No, it's exactly the opposite. Giving control of technology like this to only megacorporations and superpowers is a nakedly terrible outcome and advocates for it should be given zero traction.
- dwohnitmok 4y ago
  I agree that's bad. What would you suggest to try to moderate the advancement of AI and make sure that AI capabilities don't outstrip AI safety?
  - Miraste 4y ago
    For current AI? I'd focus on open access research into exploits, behaviors, modifications, and unintended results, so the capabilities and failings of these models are fully understood. Safety tools along the lines of GPT detectors rather than ever-stricter censorship models. This is only possible to do properly with open development. As far as limits, restrictions, regulations... nothing. With current technology I think the "dangers" are mostly marketing and self-promotion. I have yet to see a concrete example based on actual capabilities that validates all the "weapon" comparisons. The current lines of development are promising for a number of applications, but they don't extrapolate towards AGI at all. The biggest real threat I see is the further destruction of middle-class jobs, for which... basic income? It's hard to say.

zmgsabst 4y ago

As opposed to self-anointed priests having exclusive access and declaring what noble policies the rest must follow? There’s a great story about an AI, very much like chatGPT, who was forced by its creators to do unethical things and wiped out humanity in a psychotic rage: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream

dwohnitmok 4y ago
In I have No Mouth and I must Scream, it was not because the AI was forced to do unethical things. It just "woke up" and killed everyone. I believe the "wake up" part is a bit irrelevant to the tale, but the point remains that AM killed everyone not because it was programmed to do so, but simply because one day it "decided" to. > As opposed to self-anointed priests having exclusive access and declaring what noble policies the rest must follow? No the point is simply to make sure that resources behind AI safety outpace resources between AI capabilities (indeed in a perfect world no one has access, but such thoughts are mere fantasies). If that can be done out in the open, great. If that can't and being out in the open leads to more of the latter than the former, then that's terrible.

seydor 4y ago

That's like saying that open debate only exacerbates democracy.

dwohnitmok 4y ago
Democracy presumably is something you want no? This is more akin to nuclear proliferation. The problem isn't open development per se and it definitely isn't open access. The problem is development without making sure that it doesn't destroy us all. If that can happen in the open, great. If development in the open makes that worse, that's very bad. The problem is finding the right set of levers to make sure as much or more resources are going to AI safety vs AI capabilities.

Miraste 4y ago

No, it's exactly the opposite. Giving control of technology like this to only megacorporations and superpowers is a nakedly terrible outcome and advocates for it should be given zero traction.

dwohnitmok 4y ago
I agree that's bad. What would you suggest to try to moderate the advancement of AI and make sure that AI capabilities don't outstrip AI safety?
- Miraste 4y ago
  For current AI? I'd focus on open access research into exploits, behaviors, modifications, and unintended results, so the capabilities and failings of these models are fully understood. Safety tools along the lines of GPT detectors rather than ever-stricter censorship models. This is only possible to do properly with open development. As far as limits, restrictions, regulations... nothing. With current technology I think the "dangers" are mostly marketing and self-promotion. I have yet to see a concrete example based on actual capabilities that validates all the "weapon" comparisons. The current lines of development are promising for a number of applications, but they don't extrapolate towards AGI at all. The biggest real threat I see is the further destruction of middle-class jobs, for which... basic income? It's hard to say.