4 ms·

I don't think they are taken that seriously. They are writing their op-eds and fiery papers, but the field marches forward nevertheless. But I agree that the wh

by matusp 4y ago

I don't think they are taken that seriously. They are writing their op-eds and fiery papers, but the field marches forward nevertheless. But I agree that the whole fields seems like ivory-tower types trying to hijack the latest hottest technology an become the decision makers based on their "exprertise". AI as a field always attracted all kinds of weird individuals, probably because it is such a popular and influential concept. If we would work with their ethics, we would never allow computers to reach general population, because it is simply too dangerous and a lot of "harm" can be done. Their use will be heavily monitored and a license or an assessment would be required to use some of the functions, e.g., connect to the Internet.

kanzure 4y ago
We need something more like the proactionary principle instead of the precautionary principle: https://web.archive.org/web/20120203050245/http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120203050245/http://www.maxmor...
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
I'm amazed to see how common this view is on HN. You'd think the rapid progress made in AI would give more validity and attention to these concerns raised about risk and alignment.
- dantheman 4y ago
  The people doing this work are mediocre at best, if they could push the state of the art they'd being do that. It's a bunch of second handers trying to control those who actually understand what is going on.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
    Can you point to any evidence or examples of this? I don't find it a convincing counterargument at all.
random314 4y ago
Yes. The AGI teacher is a recent graduate with a Masters in physics. None of the material in this so called "course" is helpful with actual AI research or industry work. AI "alignment" is a made up field ride with crackpots and charlatans.
- jacquesthibs 4y ago
  The creator of the course was a research engineer at DeepMind and now works at OpenAI. Several people at those orgs have acted as facilitators for the course since its creation. The purpose of the course is to give people an introduction to AI risk so that they can start getting into the field. Some who take it have been ML engineers for a while and some are just learning about the field. The expectation was never to consider yourself a full-fledged alignment researcher once you finish this course, but instead to get people started. Many people will spend a bunch of time doing things like implementing GPT from scratch and replicate papers after this to try to get an internship at one of the big orgs. And then do other things to slowly make their way to producing great research. Sometimes ya’ll just want to hate on this site.
  - random314 4y ago
    I am talking about the people conducting the course - Bluedot impact. The cofounder and DRI for AI safety is who I am talking about https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/jamie-bernardi/ https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/jamie-bernardi/ The researcher who has apparently created the syllabus is also a fresh PhD with 3 years of work experience.
    - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
      So, what are they wrong about?
      - random314 4y ago
        If you like to pay for an AI ML course being taught by someone whose entire ML education is 6 months of independent self teaching (as per his own LinkedIn) go ahead, be my guest.
Sharlin 4y ago
Don't be silly. Computer proliferation is not an existential risk. — There is exactly one correct analogue to AGI risk in our history, and that is the risk of an all-out nuclear exchange. And surprise surprise, we as a species took that risk pretty damn seriously once we realized what the stakes were. Do you think that the considerable efforts to avoid nuclear proliferation, indeed even the use of a single low-yield tactical nuclear warhead in anger, are misguided?
- matusp 4y ago
  > Computer proliferation is not an existential risk. AI is created and run on computers so AGI risk must by definition be a subset of computer proliferation risk
- 13years 4y ago
  Nuclear risk is a contained problem. Access is extremely limited and controlled by low tech hardware locks. The technology is understood, we know what makes bombs explode and it is predictable by physics. AI is the opposite of all these characteristics. Its access is nearly everyone. The technology is not understood and not predictable. It is a nuclear warhead that thinks for which we don't know what might make it explode.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    Yes, although I wouldn't go as far as to claim that current AI technology has any sort of "accessible to all" path to AGI. Accessible to irresponsible actors with lots of money? Possibly, and that's the real risk. But at least it's not an absurd comparison unlike the GP's.
    - 13years 4y ago
      Unlimited power makes everyone irresponsible actors. Nvidia already stated they expect a million fold processing power in 10 years for AI.

by matusp 4y ago

kanzure 4y ago

We need something more like the proactionary principle instead of the precautionary principle: https://web.archive.org/web/20120203050245/http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120203050245/http://www.maxmor...

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

I'm amazed to see how common this view is on HN. You'd think the rapid progress made in AI would give more validity and attention to these concerns raised about risk and alignment.

dantheman 4y ago
The people doing this work are mediocre at best, if they could push the state of the art they'd being do that. It's a bunch of second handers trying to control those who actually understand what is going on.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago
  Can you point to any evidence or examples of this? I don't find it a convincing counterargument at all.

random314 4y ago

Yes. The AGI teacher is a recent graduate with a Masters in physics. None of the material in this so called "course" is helpful with actual AI research or industry work. AI "alignment" is a made up field ride with crackpots and charlatans.

jacquesthibs 4y ago
The creator of the course was a research engineer at DeepMind and now works at OpenAI. Several people at those orgs have acted as facilitators for the course since its creation. The purpose of the course is to give people an introduction to AI risk so that they can start getting into the field. Some who take it have been ML engineers for a while and some are just learning about the field. The expectation was never to consider yourself a full-fledged alignment researcher once you finish this course, but instead to get people started. Many people will spend a bunch of time doing things like implementing GPT from scratch and replicate papers after this to try to get an internship at one of the big orgs. And then do other things to slowly make their way to producing great research. Sometimes ya’ll just want to hate on this site.
- random314 4y ago
  I am talking about the people conducting the course - Bluedot impact. The cofounder and DRI for AI safety is who I am talking about https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/jamie-bernardi/ https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/jamie-bernardi/ The researcher who has apparently created the syllabus is also a fresh PhD with 3 years of work experience.
  - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
    So, what are they wrong about?
    - random314 4y ago
      If you like to pay for an AI ML course being taught by someone whose entire ML education is 6 months of independent self teaching (as per his own LinkedIn) go ahead, be my guest.

Sharlin 4y ago

Don't be silly. Computer proliferation is not an existential risk. — There is exactly one correct analogue to AGI risk in our history, and that is the risk of an all-out nuclear exchange. And surprise surprise, we as a species took that risk pretty damn seriously once we realized what the stakes were. Do you think that the considerable efforts to avoid nuclear proliferation, indeed even the use of a single low-yield tactical nuclear warhead in anger, are misguided?

matusp 4y ago
> Computer proliferation is not an existential risk. AI is created and run on computers so AGI risk must by definition be a subset of computer proliferation risk
13years 4y ago
Nuclear risk is a contained problem. Access is extremely limited and controlled by low tech hardware locks. The technology is understood, we know what makes bombs explode and it is predictable by physics. AI is the opposite of all these characteristics. Its access is nearly everyone. The technology is not understood and not predictable. It is a nuclear warhead that thinks for which we don't know what might make it explode.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Yes, although I wouldn't go as far as to claim that current AI technology has any sort of "accessible to all" path to AGI. Accessible to irresponsible actors with lots of money? Possibly, and that's the real risk. But at least it's not an absurd comparison unlike the GP's.
  - 13years 4y ago
    Unlimited power makes everyone irresponsible actors. Nvidia already stated they expect a million fold processing power in 10 years for AI.