6 ms·

As far as I know, there is no AGI community. You’re framing a risk/situation/problem as a group/cause. It is not. This isn’t like walking past a bunch of chari

As far as I know, there is no AGI community. You’re framing a risk/situation/problem as a group/cause. It is not. This isn’t like walking past a bunch of charity booths and thinking “who seems to have their act together?”. That mindset works great for deciding between donating to a charity that gives wheelchairs to the poor and another that gives glasses. It is not the right framing to evaluate the issue of something destroying humanity. The massive difference is it is completely wrong to think “well this would be a big deal, but they’re really blowing the execution”. No, that makes it a bigger deal. That’s the fundamental difference between a threat and an opportunity. Either it’s not real and it doesn’t matter, or it is real and it matters a lot. It’s not conditional on if someone can pull it off. The security concerns that impact people today are just not on the same scale of importance. Having your chat history leak or people getting scammed by voice imitations of family members is not in the same category as a super intelligent AGI whose interest doesn’t align with ours. It’s like saying a group that saw the development of the atom bomb coming and chose to focus on preventing all-out nuclear war should have done more about the radioactive water runoff from the testing sites. And, that they didn’t, means that nuclear war isn’t that important and they shouldn’t be taken seriously.

danShumway 4y ago
> Either it’s not real and it doesn’t matter, or it is real and it matters a lot. It’s not conditional on if someone can pull it off. If it is real and it does matter, and them LARPing research papers and giving OpenAI more advertising material makes it more likely to happen, that is conditional on their reaction. If the risk is real and they're making the problem worse (basically accelerating the timeline), then it would be better for them to stop talking about it and focus on basic security practices instead. > The security concerns that impact people today are just not on the same scale of importance. The security concerns that impact people today are tied into the risks of AGI. A company that can't secure its products against basic XSS attacks and prompt injection is fundamentally incapable of securing a rogue AI. You'd have a point here if these were actually different categories, but they're not. 3rd-party prompt injection by random actors is a very feasible way for an AGI to turn rogue. That should be a big priority to fix if the concerns about AGI are real. And if it's unfixable, these people should be screaming from the rooftops that we should not be wiring up AIs to any real-world systems at all until we find a better mitigation technique. I mean, you're talking about something existential; obviously if that concern is real it's more important to mitigate those problems then for OpenAI to displace Google search and get a competitive advantage on the market. And those people should terrified that OpenAI is both rushing to the market and proving that they have bad security practices. But for the most part, that reaction really isn't happening; so it makes me wonder how much people actually believe that AGI is an existential threat. The really wild thing is that most of the current-world problems that exist with AI have massive implications for AGI. Systemic bias, corporations controlling the training functions, anthropomorphism from the general public, the ability to produce deceptive material or bypass human security checks on a mass scale, prompt injection and instruction bypassing -- all of those are extremely relevant to keeping a rogue AI contained or preventing it from going rogue in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who was seriously concerned about AGI would be focusing on that stuff anyway: those categories represent some of the most immediately tangible steps you could take to prevent an AI from going rogue or from breaking containment if it went rogue.

danShumway 4y ago

> Either it’s not real and it doesn’t matter, or it is real and it matters a lot. It’s not conditional on if someone can pull it off. If it is real and it does matter, and them LARPing research papers and giving OpenAI more advertising material makes it more likely to happen, that is conditional on their reaction. If the risk is real and they're making the problem worse (basically accelerating the timeline), then it would be better for them to stop talking about it and focus on basic security practices instead. > The security concerns that impact people today are just not on the same scale of importance. The security concerns that impact people today are tied into the risks of AGI. A company that can't secure its products against basic XSS attacks and prompt injection is fundamentally incapable of securing a rogue AI. You'd have a point here if these were actually different categories, but they're not. 3rd-party prompt injection by random actors is a very feasible way for an AGI to turn rogue. That should be a big priority to fix if the concerns about AGI are real. And if it's unfixable, these people should be screaming from the rooftops that we should not be wiring up AIs to any real-world systems at all until we find a better mitigation technique. I mean, you're talking about something existential; obviously if that concern is real it's more important to mitigate those problems then for OpenAI to displace Google search and get a competitive advantage on the market. And those people should terrified that OpenAI is both rushing to the market and proving that they have bad security practices. But for the most part, that reaction really isn't happening; so it makes me wonder how much people actually believe that AGI is an existential threat. The really wild thing is that most of the current-world problems that exist with AI have massive implications for AGI. Systemic bias, corporations controlling the training functions, anthropomorphism from the general public, the ability to produce deceptive material or bypass human security checks on a mass scale, prompt injection and instruction bypassing -- all of those are extremely relevant to keeping a rogue AI contained or preventing it from going rogue in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who was seriously concerned about AGI would be focusing on that stuff anyway: those categories represent some of the most immediately tangible steps you could take to prevent an AI from going rogue or from breaking containment if it went rogue.