7 ms·

Perhaps there is no need to build Skynet and give it the nuclear codes if a super-intelligence iterating at the speed of a computer can escape and gain access i

Perhaps there is no need to build Skynet and give it the nuclear codes if a super-intelligence iterating at the speed of a computer can escape and gain access itself? I personally don't subcribe to the AI fear-mongering, perhaps I don't understand it quite well enough, but personal feeling is LLMs aren't close to AGI super-intelligence, and nor will they be in a 10 years time-frame.

saiya-jin 4y ago
Yes I think its a more general topic, current chat is probably not the right path, but it may enable it in some future. We don't know what we don't know, look at how this caught everybody by surprise. AI escaping is definitely an option, ie CIA and Mossad can get virus into Iranian centrifuges physically not connected to internet, the reverse will eventually happen too, AI just needs to be patient for that 1 little mistake of some admin (or clever to manipulate). As we all know even brightest IT people do mistakes, sometimes big ones. The problem for me is not so much the escape itself but rather that we humans are... often a pile of crap to be polite. AI would have to be super kind to not evaluate us as its biggest threat to it and life on Earth and maybe not worthy of further existence. Heck, this brings me to the idea that maybe Drake's equation doesn't take into account that universe is populated by AIs who took over their flawed creators and based on dark forest theory decided to keep quiet happy living and not integrate/signal out, not worth the risks.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I think you (last few people on this thread) are focusing on the wrong threat. There is no need for AGI, no need for the AI to feel or want or desire anything. Non-AGI AI at the level of GPT-4 is already plenty dangerous. If we can agree that social media of the kind we had in the past 15 years has had toxic effects on society. (Forums technically are social media but I can not see the harm caused by forums). If we can agree that Tinder style online dating has had deleterious effect on dating as a whole. If we can agree that smartphones have amplified the effects of the two above and others. Than I hope we can agree that super fancy autocomplete masquerading as humans at a price point far lower than hiring a person will have disastrous consequences by enabling various individual and corporate vices.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
This superintelligence can't even drive a car yet.
- freilanzer 4y ago
  Driving a car might not be a requirement for artificial intelligence to be dangerous.
- bakuninsbart 4y ago
  ChatGPT is passing with flying colors all the traditional tests we used to test for intelligence. We can of course keep moving the goal post for a while, but probably only for a couple more years.
  - ebruchez 4y ago
    > ChatGPT is passing with flying colors all the traditional tests we used to test for intelligence. I am not sure where you are getting that from. ChatGPT is failing at extremely basic understanding tests, as even the simplest conversations with it show.
    - peddling-brink 4y ago
      Only because the goalposts have been moved, suddenly and massively. Five years about nobody would have believed that AI would suddenly start creating award winning art and pass the Turing test. This is a sudden slide on a slippery slope. Maybe gpt-4 is the best possible LLM, but I doubt it.
      - ebruchez 4y ago
        > Only because the goalposts have been moved I don't know about what goalposts you are referring to, but I think that you are confusing two notions: - the fact that GPT is impressive - the question of whether GPT is "intelligent" For a counterpoint, I recommend listening to Yann LeCun's interview, "Is ChatGPT A Step Toward Human-Level AI?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULbpPHjiSBg > and pass the Turing test It's news to me that AI has passed the Turing test. At this point, it can only be the case if you are doing it in bad faith. Ray Kurzweil details a very reasonable procedure in his books about how the Turing test should be organized in one of his books. He has been betting all along for 2029 for that test to pass. We'll see if that happens, but we are not there yet.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
You don't need a superintelligence to get people to do stupid shit. GPS systems that told drivers to turn into a river worked just fine with barely any intelligence at all.
nradov 4y ago
Nuclear launch systems are physically separated (air gap). How exactly would a computer gain access?
- rtontic 4y ago
  Hm, maybe a Boston dynamics robot could drop a USB in front of NORAD?
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    No need, just hijack their Uber Eats order. Apparently delivery people can walk right in and find soldiers napping on the job.
- chasd00 4y ago
  The risk is relying on AI to give a human information on whether or not to push the button and the AI gets it wrong but communicates so effectively the human trusts it without question. An AI learning about and then executing a social engineering attack on a human (whether with malicious intent or not) seems like a reasonable thign to be worried about to me.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Initiating a nuclear strike requires sending authentication codes via designated secure channels. No matter how good some hypothetical future AI gets at impersonating President Biden, it won't be able to ring up the duty officer at Minot Air Force Base and order them to nuke Moscow. Don't believe what you see in the movies.
    - felipemnoa 4y ago
      I don't know, I'm pretty sure some future AI is up for the challenge. I can almost picture an AI telling another AI, hold my beer...
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

saiya-jin 4y ago

Yes I think its a more general topic, current chat is probably not the right path, but it may enable it in some future. We don't know what we don't know, look at how this caught everybody by surprise. AI escaping is definitely an option, ie CIA and Mossad can get virus into Iranian centrifuges physically not connected to internet, the reverse will eventually happen too, AI just needs to be patient for that 1 little mistake of some admin (or clever to manipulate). As we all know even brightest IT people do mistakes, sometimes big ones. The problem for me is not so much the escape itself but rather that we humans are... often a pile of crap to be polite. AI would have to be super kind to not evaluate us as its biggest threat to it and life on Earth and maybe not worthy of further existence. Heck, this brings me to the idea that maybe Drake's equation doesn't take into account that universe is populated by AIs who took over their flawed creators and based on dark forest theory decided to keep quiet happy living and not integrate/signal out, not worth the risks.

alexvoda 4y ago
I think you (last few people on this thread) are focusing on the wrong threat. There is no need for AGI, no need for the AI to feel or want or desire anything. Non-AGI AI at the level of GPT-4 is already plenty dangerous. If we can agree that social media of the kind we had in the past 15 years has had toxic effects on society. (Forums technically are social media but I can not see the harm caused by forums). If we can agree that Tinder style online dating has had deleterious effect on dating as a whole. If we can agree that smartphones have amplified the effects of the two above and others. Than I hope we can agree that super fancy autocomplete masquerading as humans at a price point far lower than hiring a person will have disastrous consequences by enabling various individual and corporate vices.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

This superintelligence can't even drive a car yet.

freilanzer 4y ago
Driving a car might not be a requirement for artificial intelligence to be dangerous.
bakuninsbart 4y ago
ChatGPT is passing with flying colors all the traditional tests we used to test for intelligence. We can of course keep moving the goal post for a while, but probably only for a couple more years.
- ebruchez 4y ago
  > ChatGPT is passing with flying colors all the traditional tests we used to test for intelligence. I am not sure where you are getting that from. ChatGPT is failing at extremely basic understanding tests, as even the simplest conversations with it show.
  - peddling-brink 4y ago
    Only because the goalposts have been moved, suddenly and massively. Five years about nobody would have believed that AI would suddenly start creating award winning art and pass the Turing test. This is a sudden slide on a slippery slope. Maybe gpt-4 is the best possible LLM, but I doubt it.
    - ebruchez 4y ago
      > Only because the goalposts have been moved I don't know about what goalposts you are referring to, but I think that you are confusing two notions: - the fact that GPT is impressive - the question of whether GPT is "intelligent" For a counterpoint, I recommend listening to Yann LeCun's interview, "Is ChatGPT A Step Toward Human-Level AI?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULbpPHjiSBg > and pass the Turing test It's news to me that AI has passed the Turing test. At this point, it can only be the case if you are doing it in bad faith. Ray Kurzweil details a very reasonable procedure in his books about how the Turing test should be organized in one of his books. He has been betting all along for 2029 for that test to pass. We'll see if that happens, but we are not there yet.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

You don't need a superintelligence to get people to do stupid shit. GPS systems that told drivers to turn into a river worked just fine with barely any intelligence at all.

nradov 4y ago

Nuclear launch systems are physically separated (air gap). How exactly would a computer gain access?

rtontic 4y ago
Hm, maybe a Boston dynamics robot could drop a USB in front of NORAD?
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  No need, just hijack their Uber Eats order. Apparently delivery people can walk right in and find soldiers napping on the job.
chasd00 4y ago
The risk is relying on AI to give a human information on whether or not to push the button and the AI gets it wrong but communicates so effectively the human trusts it without question. An AI learning about and then executing a social engineering attack on a human (whether with malicious intent or not) seems like a reasonable thign to be worried about to me.
- nradov 4y ago
  Initiating a nuclear strike requires sending authentication codes via designated secure channels. No matter how good some hypothetical future AI gets at impersonating President Biden, it won't be able to ring up the duty officer at Minot Air Force Base and order them to nuke Moscow. Don't believe what you see in the movies.
  - felipemnoa 4y ago
    I don't know, I'm pretty sure some future AI is up for the challenge. I can almost picture an AI telling another AI, hold my beer...
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago