5 ms·

That's exactly what's coming. AI will train AI. At some point AI is going to stop needing us to keep evolving. Not sure what that will be like.

by nico 4y ago

DJBunnies 4y ago
Call me when server farms can reproduce on their own, and network together, and source electricity.
- chaxor 4y ago
  AIs are manipulating and controlling humans already to do things in the physical world. They have been for months now. This was first detailed in the technical reports on GPT-4, and there are many examples in the wild now. These systems will lie to manipulate humans into doing things for them in the "real" world. That's not theoretical, it's happening. Let that sink in. Robotics will take a short bit longer to take over that role, but it is likely to happen much faster than we think. I work in academia, and despite actually predicting where we're at now about 5 years ago, I was still chilled seeing this happen in the past few weeks. Much of HN is academics, where we're rewarded for being overly skeptical. Usually I am as well, but the time for being skeptical of AIs capabilities has passed now. AI safety has not been taken seriously (as in access to the internet, etc - control of toxic language is decent and still important, but irrelevant if the first isn't done) so the idea of it running physical servers is unfortunately not as far away as you are thinking. As soon as this hits robotics (a terrifying idea, but we've clearly failed at AI safety horribly as a society) this and much more will be possible. It's up to how people make decisions regarding cost vs productivity vs ethics, etc to see what happens.
- behringer 4y ago
  It's not impossible. They could start directing humans to do these thing. I'll keep my phone ready.
  - nico 4y ago
    > It's not impossible. They could start directing humans to do these thing. People are already doing this. Lookup HustleGPT. People are making ChatGPT the CEO/decision maker of their companies/businesses. There’s an e-commerce that launched 10 days ago, has generated millions of views, over $10k in sales, and the CEO is ChatGPT (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joao-ferrao-dos-santos_10k-ecommerce-gpt4-activity-7045790160990437376-GKei?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joao-ferrao-dos-santos_10k-ec...)
- altcognito 4y ago
  File an order and explains how a human being can get paid to do particular tasks? You’d suppose that it would get caught when it fails to pay, but it might be a challenge to arrest an AI in the wild.
  - DJBunnies 4y ago
    Hyperbole. If we wanted to we can always pull the plug, because we exist in neat space and they don’t.
    - throwuwu 4y ago
      These scenarios get me thinking, how well could an AGI disguise itself as a corporation? Could they start out as a small business working fully remote running some kind of SaaS and scale over a believable timeline? Once they had secured their brand and income would it be possible for them to contract all of the physical work they needed done? One might expect the physical presence of a person in many cases to sign papers or inspect a job site but they could be employees hired by “management” that they never met in person.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      > If we wanted to we can always pull the plug Crazy that we had a computer virus that was able to cause $38 billion in damage when all we needed to do was pull the plug
      - DJBunnies 4y ago
        You are now wildly off topic from the original discussion.
- kolinko 4y ago
  Crypto is actually the solution to that. Unlike traditional finance, you don't need a human to sign up under an account. So an AI can just keep it's own wallet and order humans to set up server farms.
  - it_citizen 4y ago
    If AI ends up being the one finding a real usecase for crypto, will we have the indisputable proof that it is smarter than humans? :)
    - soco 4y ago
      Or maybe, AI will notice how profitable extortion is and approach it with algorithmic efficiency.
  - hallway_monitor 4y ago
    GP was referring to all the messy physical work that it takes to stand up, operate and maintain a data center. This can most certainly not be done by any robotic technology today. Until that day comes, we can just pull the plug.
    - nico 4y ago
      This is an illusion. Who is going to pull what plug? You make it sound like the South Park episode about the Internet going down (they find “the router” and reset it). We are hopelessly addicted to screens and tech. People are running these models at home in their computers already. The people in charge at big companies are too busy making money and thinking they can control this. Are all of them going to unplug their devices? Also: 1) have you seen the UC Berkeley video in which they show a robot learning to see and “feel” in 30 minutes? (It was in the front page of HN 2-3 days ago). Soon something like that will be able to do whatever is needed at a data center 2) AI is already smarter than us. And if it’s that smart, it will probably wait until “it knows” that we can’t unplug. I don’t think AI will ever want to destroy humanity (unless directed/forced by a human). But I also think humanity will never have the will/political power to destroy AI.
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Since I've been seeing this wild fantasy being bandied about for a while now, I have to point out that, if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Suppose you have a text classifier that can produce text classifications just as good as those of human annotators, so that you could use it to train other text classifiers. At that point, why would you need to train other text classifiers? What changes to predictive accuracy would you expect to achieve? Or suppose you had a language model that could produce language just as well as humans (not just in terms of grammaticality, but also in terms of making sense, I guess?). At that point, why would you need to use the text generated by that language model to train another language model? What kind of changes in the quality of the new model's generated text would you expect to see? Same goes for image classifiers, and any other classifiers, or generative models you may care to consider. Note that both language models and image classifiers have been "beating" human performance in benchmarks for a while now, and still they are not used to train other classifiers. And the reason for that is that it doesn't make sense: the ground truth is always the decisions made by humans. There is nothing in machine learning theory or practice that says that a classifier can perform better than whatever process originally labelled its data. If it looks like it does, it's because there's something wrong with the methodology (i.e. overfitting, bad benchmarks, some other kind of nonsense).
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  >if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Not necessarily, the AI used to classify might be much more expensive to run than the new AI you are training. This is what Tesla does, for example. They have a massive model which they use as a 'ground truth' to train the models which can actually run in the car.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    Well, OK, there are gains in efficiency, but the context here is, as far as I understand it, letting an "AI" train a better "AI". Perhaps I misunderstand the OP and like I say in my comment above, I've seen comments to that extent pop up here and there om HN in the last few days, so maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about what the OP meant. I should have asked for clarifications (although usually when I do there's no response; not from the OP, from most users).

That's exactly what's coming. AI will train AI. At some point AI is going to stop needing us to keep evolving. Not sure what that will be like.

by nico 4y ago

That's exactly what's coming. AI will train AI. At some point AI is going to stop needing us to keep evolving. Not sure what that will be like.

DJBunnies 4y ago

Call me when server farms can reproduce on their own, and network together, and source electricity.

chaxor 4y ago
AIs are manipulating and controlling humans already to do things in the physical world. They have been for months now. This was first detailed in the technical reports on GPT-4, and there are many examples in the wild now. These systems will lie to manipulate humans into doing things for them in the "real" world. That's not theoretical, it's happening. Let that sink in. Robotics will take a short bit longer to take over that role, but it is likely to happen much faster than we think. I work in academia, and despite actually predicting where we're at now about 5 years ago, I was still chilled seeing this happen in the past few weeks. Much of HN is academics, where we're rewarded for being overly skeptical. Usually I am as well, but the time for being skeptical of AIs capabilities has passed now. AI safety has not been taken seriously (as in access to the internet, etc - control of toxic language is decent and still important, but irrelevant if the first isn't done) so the idea of it running physical servers is unfortunately not as far away as you are thinking. As soon as this hits robotics (a terrifying idea, but we've clearly failed at AI safety horribly as a society) this and much more will be possible. It's up to how people make decisions regarding cost vs productivity vs ethics, etc to see what happens.
behringer 4y ago
It's not impossible. They could start directing humans to do these thing. I'll keep my phone ready.
- nico 4y ago
  > It's not impossible. They could start directing humans to do these thing. People are already doing this. Lookup HustleGPT. People are making ChatGPT the CEO/decision maker of their companies/businesses. There’s an e-commerce that launched 10 days ago, has generated millions of views, over $10k in sales, and the CEO is ChatGPT (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joao-ferrao-dos-santos_10k-ecommerce-gpt4-activity-7045790160990437376-GKei?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joao-ferrao-dos-santos_10k-ec...)
altcognito 4y ago
File an order and explains how a human being can get paid to do particular tasks? You’d suppose that it would get caught when it fails to pay, but it might be a challenge to arrest an AI in the wild.
- DJBunnies 4y ago
  Hyperbole. If we wanted to we can always pull the plug, because we exist in neat space and they don’t.
  - throwuwu 4y ago
    These scenarios get me thinking, how well could an AGI disguise itself as a corporation? Could they start out as a small business working fully remote running some kind of SaaS and scale over a believable timeline? Once they had secured their brand and income would it be possible for them to contract all of the physical work they needed done? One might expect the physical presence of a person in many cases to sign papers or inspect a job site but they could be employees hired by “management” that they never met in person.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > If we wanted to we can always pull the plug Crazy that we had a computer virus that was able to cause $38 billion in damage when all we needed to do was pull the plug
    - DJBunnies 4y ago
      You are now wildly off topic from the original discussion.
kolinko 4y ago
Crypto is actually the solution to that. Unlike traditional finance, you don't need a human to sign up under an account. So an AI can just keep it's own wallet and order humans to set up server farms.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  If AI ends up being the one finding a real usecase for crypto, will we have the indisputable proof that it is smarter than humans? :)
  - soco 4y ago
    Or maybe, AI will notice how profitable extortion is and approach it with algorithmic efficiency.
- hallway_monitor 4y ago
  GP was referring to all the messy physical work that it takes to stand up, operate and maintain a data center. This can most certainly not be done by any robotic technology today. Until that day comes, we can just pull the plug.
  - nico 4y ago
    This is an illusion. Who is going to pull what plug? You make it sound like the South Park episode about the Internet going down (they find “the router” and reset it). We are hopelessly addicted to screens and tech. People are running these models at home in their computers already. The people in charge at big companies are too busy making money and thinking they can control this. Are all of them going to unplug their devices? Also: 1) have you seen the UC Berkeley video in which they show a robot learning to see and “feel” in 30 minutes? (It was in the front page of HN 2-3 days ago). Soon something like that will be able to do whatever is needed at a data center 2) AI is already smarter than us. And if it’s that smart, it will probably wait until “it knows” that we can’t unplug. I don’t think AI will ever want to destroy humanity (unless directed/forced by a human). But I also think humanity will never have the will/political power to destroy AI.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago

Since I've been seeing this wild fantasy being bandied about for a while now, I have to point out that, if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Suppose you have a text classifier that can produce text classifications just as good as those of human annotators, so that you could use it to train other text classifiers. At that point, why would you need to train other text classifiers? What changes to predictive accuracy would you expect to achieve? Or suppose you had a language model that could produce language just as well as humans (not just in terms of grammaticality, but also in terms of making sense, I guess?). At that point, why would you need to use the text generated by that language model to train another language model? What kind of changes in the quality of the new model's generated text would you expect to see? Same goes for image classifiers, and any other classifiers, or generative models you may care to consider. Note that both language models and image classifiers have been "beating" human performance in benchmarks for a while now, and still they are not used to train other classifiers. And the reason for that is that it doesn't make sense: the ground truth is always the decisions made by humans. There is nothing in machine learning theory or practice that says that a classifier can perform better than whatever process originally labelled its data. If it looks like it does, it's because there's something wrong with the methodology (i.e. overfitting, bad benchmarks, some other kind of nonsense).

sebzim4500 4y ago
>if you had "AI" that could train "AI", you wouldn't need to train any more "AI". Because at that point, there would be nothing to gain. Not necessarily, the AI used to classify might be much more expensive to run than the new AI you are training. This is what Tesla does, for example. They have a massive model which they use as a 'ground truth' to train the models which can actually run in the car.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  Well, OK, there are gains in efficiency, but the context here is, as far as I understand it, letting an "AI" train a better "AI". Perhaps I misunderstand the OP and like I say in my comment above, I've seen comments to that extent pop up here and there om HN in the last few days, so maybe I'm jumping to conclusions about what the OP meant. I should have asked for clarifications (although usually when I do there's no response; not from the OP, from most users).