5 ms·

I am not very familiar with the terrain; asking as a noob. What's to stop GPT6 (which has read all of the world's research papers), from being used by terrorist

by jeswin 4y ago

I am not very familiar with the terrain; asking as a noob. What's to stop GPT6 (which has read all of the world's research papers), from being used by terrorists to make deadly concoctions/devices? It seems being able to correlate information faster than our brightest minds (and hence maybe make discoveries) is now just over the horizon. This seems eerily like the 80s/90s when chess engines were getting smarter, but most people at that time believed they were incapable of truly novel strategies.

cdogl 4y ago
A predictive language model is unlikely to a) make novel discoveries or b) organise the supply chains and real-world work that would be necessary to say GPT6 served any role beyond fancy search engine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- barking_biscuit 4y ago
  A goal directed agent with long-term memory might though. Humans just aren't special.
needusername2 4y ago
I dont think anyone who seriously understood the subject at the time believed that chess engines as a concept could not make novel strategies. They could believe that the current(for their time) implementations of a chess engine could not, but understand its inevitable that it could. Same as the fact that we dont believe chat gpt can invent or create anything truly novel, but we know that AI and neural networks as a whole can and almost certainly will. As to whether or not terrorists can use it to make weapons, they probably can benefit from it the same way they could benefit from a much improved version of google. In that there can definitely benefit, but not completely handle the process.
kkoncevicius 4y ago
GPT is a language model, meaning it tries to model language - output something that would be acceptable as text by a human reader. In a similar way how your screen-saver might mimic water. But just how your screen saver isn't useful to study the properties of water, these language models are not useful to come up with new ideas. In fact, they are even biased against making new discoveries. Anything new is, by definition, outside the model. If a model were to return a new thing (not found in the training set) it would be down-weighted as being in the risk of not looking like an acceptable text (i.e. - was never seen before). Not unlike how a new behaviour of water (say under certain interesting conditions) would be outside the capabilities of your screen-saver, which only tries to mimic the existing and known properties of water. As a practical example - try asking it to make an original joke. It will either fail, or give you a joke, written down word for word, from somewhere else on the internet. By the time of GPT6 these problems might be overcome, but then it would be more than a language model.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  You conflate natural language and ideas, creating new ideas does not require creating a new statistical model of language. There is plenty of evidence that GPT can indeed create entirely novel ideas, it can do logical inference, imagine scenarios that don't fit its world model, create entirely new pieces of code. The fact that a Python program is restricted to Python syntax (language model) and libraries (world model), does not prevent it from being Turing complete.
  - kkoncevicius 4y ago
    > You conflate natural language and ideas, creating new ideas does not require creating a new statistical model of language. The way I see it, currently, the correct logical inferences made by a model are a by-product of it trying to output acceptable text. That is to say - they are one of the properties, that it has learned, that makes the text acceptable. So it can say that 2+2 is 4 and, of course, even more complex statements like that, but it's based on modelling language, not modelling what is under the language. > There is plenty of evidence that GPT can indeed create entirely novel ideas, it can do logical inference, imagine scenarios that don't fit its world model, create entirely new code. I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise, maybe you can give me the best example of a new idea created by GPT?
hiddencost 4y ago
Solved problem: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-chemical-weapons-generative-models-vx https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-...
drw85 4y ago
In its current state, you would be more likely to blow yourself up, due to the instructions being partially hallucinated or made up. Language models predict what to say in a way that makes sense, but a lot of the actual content can be made up nonsense. It just sounds correct enough to pass for most people.
snickerbockers 4y ago
I can't imagine this being a problem unless it figures out a clever new scheme to smuggle bomb-making materials into victim countries without the authorities noticing. You can make a really powerful bomb out of fertilizer but if you aren't a farmer and you place a large order the FBI will star paying attention to you.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KHRZ 4y ago
Well a chess only predicts the next move, so therefore a chess engine can't be that smart!
- Jensson 4y ago
  Chess predicts who will win based on the board state, otherwise a chess engine wouldn't be able to beat world champions. Try building a chess engine just by studying human moves and not running any logic or simulations and you'd get a shit chess bot, even if you throw millions of dollars of compute at it if you don't make it play simulated games and this map out board states it will be shit. Just getting the chess bot to make legal moves would be very hard without hardcoding the rules of chess, we can hardcore chess logic but we can't hardcode language logic so we can't solve language in the same ways. That is the state of LLM's today, I don't think there is a way around this without having some sort of logic engine, similar to how chess engines played and simulated games to train and test things.
atemerev 4y ago
Knowledge on how to make nuclear bombs or bioweapons is not secret. It is publicly accessible and any good physicist or biochemist can understand it. Thankfully, it has considerable engineering challenges to not be accessible to any individual person or even a small organization. Not only everything is expensive, but it requires decades of hard engineering and construction experience for large-scale projects. ChatGPT can tell you how to build a nuclear weapon. You can _read_ on how to build a nuclear weapon even without ChatGPT, down to all measures and materials list, this information is not exactly secret anymore. But you on your own won’t be able to do it.

by jeswin 4y ago

cdogl 4y ago

A predictive language model is unlikely to a) make novel discoveries or b) organise the supply chains and real-world work that would be necessary to say GPT6 served any role beyond fancy search engine.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
barking_biscuit 4y ago
A goal directed agent with long-term memory might though. Humans just aren't special.

needusername2 4y ago

I dont think anyone who seriously understood the subject at the time believed that chess engines as a concept could not make novel strategies. They could believe that the current(for their time) implementations of a chess engine could not, but understand its inevitable that it could. Same as the fact that we dont believe chat gpt can invent or create anything truly novel, but we know that AI and neural networks as a whole can and almost certainly will. As to whether or not terrorists can use it to make weapons, they probably can benefit from it the same way they could benefit from a much improved version of google. In that there can definitely benefit, but not completely handle the process.

kkoncevicius 4y ago

GPT is a language model, meaning it tries to model language - output something that would be acceptable as text by a human reader. In a similar way how your screen-saver might mimic water. But just how your screen saver isn't useful to study the properties of water, these language models are not useful to come up with new ideas. In fact, they are even biased against making new discoveries. Anything new is, by definition, outside the model. If a model were to return a new thing (not found in the training set) it would be down-weighted as being in the risk of not looking like an acceptable text (i.e. - was never seen before). Not unlike how a new behaviour of water (say under certain interesting conditions) would be outside the capabilities of your screen-saver, which only tries to mimic the existing and known properties of water. As a practical example - try asking it to make an original joke. It will either fail, or give you a joke, written down word for word, from somewhere else on the internet. By the time of GPT6 these problems might be overcome, but then it would be more than a language model.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
You conflate natural language and ideas, creating new ideas does not require creating a new statistical model of language. There is plenty of evidence that GPT can indeed create entirely novel ideas, it can do logical inference, imagine scenarios that don't fit its world model, create entirely new pieces of code. The fact that a Python program is restricted to Python syntax (language model) and libraries (world model), does not prevent it from being Turing complete.
- kkoncevicius 4y ago
  > You conflate natural language and ideas, creating new ideas does not require creating a new statistical model of language. The way I see it, currently, the correct logical inferences made by a model are a by-product of it trying to output acceptable text. That is to say - they are one of the properties, that it has learned, that makes the text acceptable. So it can say that 2+2 is 4 and, of course, even more complex statements like that, but it's based on modelling language, not modelling what is under the language. > There is plenty of evidence that GPT can indeed create entirely novel ideas, it can do logical inference, imagine scenarios that don't fit its world model, create entirely new code. I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise, maybe you can give me the best example of a new idea created by GPT?

hiddencost 4y ago

Solved problem: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-chemical-weapons-generative-models-vx https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-...

drw85 4y ago

In its current state, you would be more likely to blow yourself up, due to the instructions being partially hallucinated or made up. Language models predict what to say in a way that makes sense, but a lot of the actual content can be made up nonsense. It just sounds correct enough to pass for most people.

snickerbockers 4y ago

I can't imagine this being a problem unless it figures out a clever new scheme to smuggle bomb-making materials into victim countries without the authorities noticing. You can make a really powerful bomb out of fertilizer but if you aren't a farmer and you place a large order the FBI will star paying attention to you.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

KHRZ 4y ago

Well a chess only predicts the next move, so therefore a chess engine can't be that smart!

Jensson 4y ago
Chess predicts who will win based on the board state, otherwise a chess engine wouldn't be able to beat world champions. Try building a chess engine just by studying human moves and not running any logic or simulations and you'd get a shit chess bot, even if you throw millions of dollars of compute at it if you don't make it play simulated games and this map out board states it will be shit. Just getting the chess bot to make legal moves would be very hard without hardcoding the rules of chess, we can hardcore chess logic but we can't hardcode language logic so we can't solve language in the same ways. That is the state of LLM's today, I don't think there is a way around this without having some sort of logic engine, similar to how chess engines played and simulated games to train and test things.

atemerev 4y ago

Knowledge on how to make nuclear bombs or bioweapons is not secret. It is publicly accessible and any good physicist or biochemist can understand it. Thankfully, it has considerable engineering challenges to not be accessible to any individual person or even a small organization. Not only everything is expensive, but it requires decades of hard engineering and construction experience for large-scale projects. ChatGPT can tell you how to build a nuclear weapon. You can _read_ on how to build a nuclear weapon even without ChatGPT, down to all measures and materials list, this information is not exactly secret anymore. But you on your own won’t be able to do it.