3 ms·

At least we now have plenty of evidence that people happily kick-off fairly unconstrained self-improving AI programs. With the $100 “make as much money” attempt

At least we now have plenty of evidence that people happily kick-off fairly unconstrained self-improving AI programs. With the $100 “make as much money” attempt in the GPT4 paper and now this. We better not invent a system that’s incredibly good at improving itself :)

diggan 4y ago
Considering that each edit takes a very long time, the success rate is very low and the API key can be disabled at any point, I didn't see any harm. Unless I missed something obvious?
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  This was just a toy example, there will be groups with an explicit goal to create self-modifying AI with far more resources. There will be people who create interfaces between self-modifying AI and APIs, allowing it to interact with other people's systems. There will be people who connect self-modifying AI to real world objects - robotics, cameras, sensors. There will be people who get self-modifying AI to broadcast messages to people, and to adjust its behaviour depending on the actions of those people.
- ricklamers 4y ago
  No I think it’s fairly safe to assume this setup wouldn’t be problematic. And maybe if it was a setup that was much less constrained (eg not behind a rate limited third party API) people _would_ operate with more caution. I’ve been having fun hypothesizing arguments for and against the plausibility of a “singularity” event. Still can’t make up my mind. Just to be clear, not a dig at the OP insinuating recklessness or w/e.
  - diggan 4y ago
    I'd for sure be more careful in that case. The program did steer in the direction of making it less obvious to me what edits it actually did, so if it faster and without any limits, who'd know what the end state would be.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  These are all Mar 2023 considerations. Things will get faster, better and possibly harder to disable especially if delivered as a virus, where every pc/phone has an “AIPU”

diggan 4y ago

Considering that each edit takes a very long time, the success rate is very low and the API key can be disabled at any point, I didn't see any harm. Unless I missed something obvious?

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
This was just a toy example, there will be groups with an explicit goal to create self-modifying AI with far more resources. There will be people who create interfaces between self-modifying AI and APIs, allowing it to interact with other people's systems. There will be people who connect self-modifying AI to real world objects - robotics, cameras, sensors. There will be people who get self-modifying AI to broadcast messages to people, and to adjust its behaviour depending on the actions of those people.
ricklamers 4y ago
No I think it’s fairly safe to assume this setup wouldn’t be problematic. And maybe if it was a setup that was much less constrained (eg not behind a rate limited third party API) people _would_ operate with more caution. I’ve been having fun hypothesizing arguments for and against the plausibility of a “singularity” event. Still can’t make up my mind. Just to be clear, not a dig at the OP insinuating recklessness or w/e.
- diggan 4y ago
  I'd for sure be more careful in that case. The program did steer in the direction of making it less obvious to me what edits it actually did, so if it faster and without any limits, who'd know what the end state would be.
quickthrower2 4y ago
These are all Mar 2023 considerations. Things will get faster, better and possibly harder to disable especially if delivered as a virus, where every pc/phone has an “AIPU”