3 ms·

Yes, but GPT-5 will be better and the humans won’t. It’s very troubling.

by nr2x 4y ago

ftxbro 4y ago
I agree, but there are questions about GPT-N successors. Surprisingly (to me) many people think that GPT-N will never exceed human level intelligence because it was trained on the internet. I think that argument is obviously wrong. Another is that I am sure a large chunk of people will never concede that the AI is smarter than them. Literally never, no matter how smart the bot gets. I mean, probably a lot of people think they are as smart as anyone else. They won't agree that someone else is smarter than them, and they certainly won't agree that some bot is smarter than them. It's also a loaded assessment, like they will think that if they agree to that, then they are also implicitly agreeing to cede their personal agency to the bot. Another possibility is that GPT-N successors that surpass human level cognition will be banned by regulation, like some drugs or nuclear explosives or bio weapons. They could even be pre-emptively banned at some level below human level, and maybe it would never be publicly acknowledged that it's technically possible to go above human level.
- ilaksh 4y ago
  GPT4 is already better than most if not all humans in some metrics. I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed. But the existential concern comes from supposed exponential takeoff. To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed. Weirdly you don't see people talking about regulating autonomy which is also part of it. I find the argument that Eliezer Yudkowsky makes with the super slow aliens to be very compelling especially in the context of fully autonomous AI that people have stupidly designed to imitate human (animal) characteristics like survival instincts. I suspect that that regulators will ban extremely high performing AI. But unfortunately the prediction is that this can't be contained which means it's quite probable that militaries will cause the end of the world just like we have been expecting but in a new way. Since they will likely be excluded from the ban at least secretly.
  - ftxbro 4y ago
    Probably we both think similar things, but I disagree with one thing. I think it's weird that you say "I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed." in combination with "To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed." To me, those situations are way too close to each other (human level vs. 10x 'smarter') to be able to say one is a "hard sell" and the other is "easy to convince people." I mean maybe you are exaggerating your certainty to make a point, but I don't think it's at all realistic to say that one will be hard and the other will be easy.
    - ilaksh 4y ago
      We already have the human level and people seem unconvinced. And it's been shown to be safe as far as existential risk. The easily convincing argument for me is imagining the planet populated by aliens that move extremely slowly. This makes more sense when it's closer to 1/100th speed. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... Although having actually read that, it's not convincing in this context because the AI in the story is already fantastically performant.

Yes, but GPT-5 will be better and the humans won’t. It’s very troubling.

by nr2x 4y ago

Yes, but GPT-5 will be better and the humans won’t. It’s very troubling.

I agree, but there are questions about GPT-N successors. Surprisingly (to me) many people think that GPT-N will never exceed human level intelligence because it was trained on the internet. I think that argument is obviously wrong. Another is that I am sure a large chunk of people will never concede that the AI is smarter than them. Literally never, no matter how smart the bot gets. I mean, probably a lot of people think they are as smart as anyone else. They won't agree that someone else is smarter than them, and they certainly won't agree that some bot is smarter than them. It's also a loaded assessment, like they will think that if they agree to that, then they are also implicitly agreeing to cede their personal agency to the bot. Another possibility is that GPT-N successors that surpass human level cognition will be banned by regulation, like some drugs or nuclear explosives or bio weapons. They could even be pre-emptively banned at some level below human level, and maybe it would never be publicly acknowledged that it's technically possible to go above human level.

ilaksh 4y ago
GPT4 is already better than most if not all humans in some metrics. I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed. But the existential concern comes from supposed exponential takeoff. To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed. Weirdly you don't see people talking about regulating autonomy which is also part of it. I find the argument that Eliezer Yudkowsky makes with the super slow aliens to be very compelling especially in the context of fully autonomous AI that people have stupidly designed to imitate human (animal) characteristics like survival instincts. I suspect that that regulators will ban extremely high performing AI. But unfortunately the prediction is that this can't be contained which means it's quite probable that militaries will cause the end of the world just like we have been expecting but in a new way. Since they will likely be excluded from the ban at least secretly.
- ftxbro 4y ago
  Probably we both think similar things, but I disagree with one thing. I think it's weird that you say "I think it's a hard sell to say that nothing better than human is allowed." in combination with "To me it should be easy to convince people that something 10 or 100 times faster or smarter than humans should not be allowed." To me, those situations are way too close to each other (human level vs. 10x 'smarter') to be able to say one is a "hard sell" and the other is "easy to convince people." I mean maybe you are exaggerating your certainty to make a point, but I don't think it's at all realistic to say that one will be hard and the other will be easy.
  - ilaksh 4y ago
    We already have the human level and people seem unconvinced. And it's been shown to be safe as far as existential risk. The easily convincing argument for me is imagining the planet populated by aliens that move extremely slowly. This makes more sense when it's closer to 1/100th speed. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien... Although having actually read that, it's not convincing in this context because the AI in the story is already fantastically performant.