4 ms·

On Twitter, it was "multi-blillionaires [Elon Musk] want to keep us down!" In the HN open letter thread it was "All the companies falling behind want a chance t

by lkbm 4y ago

On Twitter, it was "multi-blillionaires [Elon Musk] want to keep us down!" In the HN open letter thread it was "All the companies falling behind want a chance to catch up." Now it's "Gary Marcus". The letter was signed by a lot of people, including many AI researchers, including people working on LLMs. Any dismissal that reduces to [one incumbent interest] opposes this" is missing the mark. A lot of people, incumbents and non-incumbents, relevant experts and non-experts, are saying we need to figure out AI safety. Some have been saying it for years, other just recently, but if you want to dismiss their views, you're going to need to address their arguments, not just ad hominem dismissals.

chatmasta 4y ago
Elon Musk is the most ironic signatory of this blog post, considering his decade-long effort to put AI behind the wheel of 100mph+ vehicles. And then he's got the gall to lecture the rest of us on "AI safety" after we finally get a semi-intelligent chatbot? Come on, man.
- sethd 4y ago
  Given that FSD is obviously a scam, wouldn't a pause like this be in his best interest? (buys them more time, while keeping the hype machine going)
  - thot_experiment 4y ago
    I don't know, a Tesla got me door to burrito store (6 miles) in the pelting rain the other day without human input. Seems like that's not quite the bar for an outright scam.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  If we are being fair, even though we might refer to self driving capabilities as "ai" and as self aware supercomputer overlord as "ai" they aren't the same thing and you can hold different opinions on the development of them.
nl 4y ago
I don't particularly care about crowds on Twitter or HN. Musk has lots of money but can't stop me spending mine. Marcus said: > We must demand transparency, and if we don’t get it, we must contemplate shutting these projects down. https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-sparks-of-agi-or-the-end-of-science https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-sparks-of-agi-or-the-e... (While at the same time still saying "it's nothing to do with AGI")
- lkbm 4y ago
  Sure, sure, Marcus says one thing and has one set of motives. Elon Musk says another thing and has another set of motives. But if you want to dismiss this by questioning the motives of the signers, you've got a few thousand other people whose motives you have to identify and dismiss. It would be much more effective, and meaningful, to challenge their arguments.
  - nl 4y ago
    I think the Scott Aaroson link posted did a pretty good job of that. I don't think their arguments deserve anything more than that.
nradov 4y ago
There are actually no relevant experts in the field of artificial general intelligence, or the safety thereof. No one has defined a clear path to build such a thing. Claiming to be an expert in this field is like claiming to be an expert in warp drives or time machines. Those calling for a halt in research are merely ignorant, or attention seeking grifters. Their statements can be dismissed out of hand regardless of their personal wealth or academic credentials. Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. There is zero evidence that they could ever be developed into something that could take intentional action on it's own, or somehow physically threaten humans. LLMs are useful for improving human productivity, and we're going to see some ugly results when criminals and psychopaths use those tools for their own ends. But this is no different from any other tool like the printing press. It is not a valid reason to restrict research.
- nl 4y ago
  > Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. This is wrong. They are have the capability for in-context learning, which doesn't match most definitions of "statistical tools"
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- quonn 4y ago
  > Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. Yawn. At a minimum they are tools of which we do not understand how exactly they work internally.
- lkbm 4y ago
  This is a bit like saying that 1939 Einstein wasn't an expert in nuclear bombs. Sure, it didn't exist, so he wasn't an expert on them, but he was an expert on the thing that led to it and when we said it was possible, sensible people listened. A lot of people working on LLMs say that they believe there is a path to AGI. I'm very skeptical of claims that there's zero evidence in support of their views. I know some of these people and while they might be wrong, they're not stupid, grifters, malicious, or otherwise off-their-rockers. What would you consider to be evidence that these (or some other technology) could be a path to be a serious physical threat? It's only meaningful for there to be "zero evidence" if there's something that could work as evidence. What is it?
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< A lot of people, incumbents and non-incumbents, relevant experts and non-experts, are saying we need to figure out AI safety. Some have been saying it for years, other just recently, but if you want to dismiss their views, you're going to need to address their arguments, not just ad hominem dismissals. Some of us look at patterns and are, understandably, cynical given some of the steps taken ( including those that effectively made OpenAI private the moment its potential payoff became somewhat evident ). So yeah. There is money on the table and some real stakes that could be lost by the handful of recent owners. Those incumbent and non-incumbent voices are only being amplified now ( as you noted they DID exist before all this ), because it is convenient for the narrative. They are not being dismissed. They are simply being used.

by lkbm 4y ago

chatmasta 4y ago

Elon Musk is the most ironic signatory of this blog post, considering his decade-long effort to put AI behind the wheel of 100mph+ vehicles. And then he's got the gall to lecture the rest of us on "AI safety" after we finally get a semi-intelligent chatbot? Come on, man.

sethd 4y ago
Given that FSD is obviously a scam, wouldn't a pause like this be in his best interest? (buys them more time, while keeping the hype machine going)
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  I don't know, a Tesla got me door to burrito store (6 miles) in the pelting rain the other day without human input. Seems like that's not quite the bar for an outright scam.
WillPostForFood 4y ago
If we are being fair, even though we might refer to self driving capabilities as "ai" and as self aware supercomputer overlord as "ai" they aren't the same thing and you can hold different opinions on the development of them.

nl 4y ago

I don't particularly care about crowds on Twitter or HN. Musk has lots of money but can't stop me spending mine. Marcus said: > We must demand transparency, and if we don’t get it, we must contemplate shutting these projects down. https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-sparks-of-agi-or-the-end-of-science https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-sparks-of-agi-or-the-e... (While at the same time still saying "it's nothing to do with AGI")

lkbm 4y ago
Sure, sure, Marcus says one thing and has one set of motives. Elon Musk says another thing and has another set of motives. But if you want to dismiss this by questioning the motives of the signers, you've got a few thousand other people whose motives you have to identify and dismiss. It would be much more effective, and meaningful, to challenge their arguments.
- nl 4y ago
  I think the Scott Aaroson link posted did a pretty good job of that. I don't think their arguments deserve anything more than that.

nradov 4y ago

There are actually no relevant experts in the field of artificial general intelligence, or the safety thereof. No one has defined a clear path to build such a thing. Claiming to be an expert in this field is like claiming to be an expert in warp drives or time machines. Those calling for a halt in research are merely ignorant, or attention seeking grifters. Their statements can be dismissed out of hand regardless of their personal wealth or academic credentials. Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. There is zero evidence that they could ever be developed into something that could take intentional action on it's own, or somehow physically threaten humans. LLMs are useful for improving human productivity, and we're going to see some ugly results when criminals and psychopaths use those tools for their own ends. But this is no different from any other tool like the printing press. It is not a valid reason to restrict research.

nl 4y ago
> Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. This is wrong. They are have the capability for in-context learning, which doesn't match most definitions of "statistical tools"
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
quonn 4y ago
> Current LLMs are merely sophisticated statistical tools. Yawn. At a minimum they are tools of which we do not understand how exactly they work internally.
lkbm 4y ago
This is a bit like saying that 1939 Einstein wasn't an expert in nuclear bombs. Sure, it didn't exist, so he wasn't an expert on them, but he was an expert on the thing that led to it and when we said it was possible, sensible people listened. A lot of people working on LLMs say that they believe there is a path to AGI. I'm very skeptical of claims that there's zero evidence in support of their views. I know some of these people and while they might be wrong, they're not stupid, grifters, malicious, or otherwise off-their-rockers. What would you consider to be evidence that these (or some other technology) could be a path to be a serious physical threat? It's only meaningful for there to be "zero evidence" if there's something that could work as evidence. What is it?

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<< A lot of people, incumbents and non-incumbents, relevant experts and non-experts, are saying we need to figure out AI safety. Some have been saying it for years, other just recently, but if you want to dismiss their views, you're going to need to address their arguments, not just ad hominem dismissals. Some of us look at patterns and are, understandably, cynical given some of the steps taken ( including those that effectively made OpenAI private the moment its potential payoff became somewhat evident ). So yeah. There is money on the table and some real stakes that could be lost by the handful of recent owners. Those incumbent and non-incumbent voices are only being amplified now ( as you noted they DID exist before all this ), because it is convenient for the narrative. They are not being dismissed. They are simply being used.