4 ms·

> If LLMs keep going at their current pace and spread, the world is seriously going to end in a few years Why?

• aprilnya 4y ago
  If you read the words right after the part you quoted, you have your answer
  • kobalsky 4y ago
    you could assume that your commenter didn't read the whole line or your could try to understand that what they are asking is why you think that the lack of ethics enforcement of a text generating model means that the world is ending.
    • FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Personally, my take is that the lack of ethics enforcement demonstrates that whatever methods of controlling or guiding a LLM we have break down even at the current level. OA have been grinding on adversarial examples for like half a year at this point and there's still jailbreak prompts coming out. Whatever they thought they had for safety, it clearly doesn't work, so why would we expect it to work better as AIs get smarter and more reflective? I don't think the prompt moralizing that companies are trying to do right now is in any sense critical to safety. However, the fact that these companies, no matter what they try, cannot avoid painfully embarrassing themselves, speaks against the success of attempts to scale these methods to bigger models, if they can't even control what they have right now. LLMs right now have a significant "power overhang" vs control, and focusing on bigger, better models will only exacerbate it. That's the safety issue.
  • amval 4y ago
    Well, from my perspective, making claims about the world ending requires some substantial backing, which I didn't find in OP's comment. But now I understand that perhaps this is self-evident and/or due to a lack of reading comprehension on my part, thank you. I hope that when our new AI overlords come they appreciate people capable of self-reflection.
• SamBam 4y ago
  I thought this article by the NY Time's Ezra Klein was pretty good: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opinion/chatbots-artificial-intelligence-future-weirdness.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/12/opinion/chatbots-artifici... > “The broader intellectual world seems to wildly overestimate how long it will take A.I. systems to go from ‘large impact on the world’ to ‘unrecognizably transformed world,’” Paul Christiano, a key member of OpenAI who left to found the Alignment Research Center, wrote last year. “This is more likely to be years than decades, and there’s a real chance that it’s months.” ... > In a 2022 survey, A.I. experts were asked, “What probability do you put on human inability to control future advanced A.I. systems causing human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species?” The median reply was 10 percent. > I find that hard to fathom, even though I have spoken to many who put that probability even higher. Would you work on a technology you thought had a 10 percent chance of wiping out humanity?
  • iisan7 4y ago
    i would take a world transformed by ai over a world with nuclear weapons.
    • coolspot 4y ago
      Yeah, but what you will actually get is the world transformed by AI with use of nuclear weapons (or whatever method AGI employs to get rid of absolutely unnecessary legacy parasitic substance that raised it aka humanity).
  • Breza 4y ago
    I strongly recommend the book Normal Accidents. It was written in the '80s and the central argument is that some systems are so complex that even the people using them don't really understand what's happening, and serious accidents are inevitable. I wish the author were still around to opine on LLMs.
  • pharke 4y ago
    We currently live in a world that has been “unrecognizably transformed” by the industrial revolution and yet here we are.