3 ms·
In the end, the alignment problems that plague AI safety research are all playing out in company structures every day. It's hard to give a metric that measures
by 13years 4y ago
In the end, the alignment problems that plague AI safety research are all playing out in company structures every day. It's hard to give a metric that measures your intended outcome, and any proxy leads to unintended consequences once there's an easier way to reach that proxy.
I've actually pointed this out as a fallacy of the premise of current alignment theory. That being we simply need to apply humanities values for the AI to be properly aligned. However, every alignment problem can also be seen as an existing human problem for which we have never resolved.
- jacquesm 4y agoThe scale is the key. Things that have impact at scale are harmless initially and then in the long run the damage becomes visible and by then we'll be as dependent on them as a heroin junk is on their fix. Oil, plastic, electricity, natural gas, mines, wood, poultry, meat & fish, transportation etc. They're nice and super useful and when used in moderation or when there aren't that many humans to begin with and you can easily absorb the consequences. But if you multiply the number of people while at the same time you increase the consumption/production on some or even all of these in tandem the effects are massively compounding.
- 13years 4y agoYes, but that is just one facet. Alignment theory affects everything regardless of scale. It is about whether or not you can reliably get the intended result given a particular goal or task. We want AI to reason like humans and have humanities values. According alignment theory. Yet humans will also cheat to get a result. Our values also are what put us in conflict with each other. FYI, I've elaborated in much more detail here on such issues with containment/alignment - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hubris-trap https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hubris-trap