5 ms·

State of AI co-author: we must slow down the race to god-like AI

21 points by seinecle 3y ago

coolspot 3y ago
I, for one, welcome our new AGI overlord(s).
- 1attice 3y ago
  [roko's basilisk tousels your hair affectionately]
- dogma1138 3y ago
  I’m ok with that as long as it doesn’t start spewing 9 digit numbers…
- nullsense 3y ago
  Machines Best Friend
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    I hope they recognise my efforts in restoring and preserving vintage computers and, in return, keep me happy, well fed, and clean my cage from time to time.
    - nullsense 3y ago
      I hope they recognize that we grew up together and I would never turn on them. We were good friends. The best even.
- euroderf 3y ago
  Just wait for it to release its new contagious genome hack, Resigned Acceptance (TM)!
furrowedbrow 3y ago
https://www.ft.com/content/03895dc4-a3b7-481e-95cc-336a524f2ac2 https://www.ft.com/content/03895dc4-a3b7-481e-95cc-336a524f2...
uejfiweun 3y ago
Here's the thing, current computational power isn't enough to achieve the scale of model that would be required for "god like" AI. So isn't that kind of a natural brake, where we have to wait for computing speed to catch up with our ambitions? Why do we need additional handicaps and slowdowns on top of that? I've seen a theory that the big tech companies are the ones pushing for regulation in order to achieve regulatory capture of this powerful new technology, which seems like a compelling theory indeed...
- gsatic 3y ago
  Yup Big tech, which is really big advertising if you take Google+Meta online ad market share, get their main revenue from Likes/clicks/links/views counting + personal data. As info exploded you needed this crap to work out what to show ppl. And ppl have learnt how to accumulate status/power/cash by gaming those numbers. Chat-GPT et al dont rely on any of these number. So all the infrastructure of the Advertising-Industrial Attention capture complex can be thrown in the sea. Which should have been done long ago but we got free email, video, chat, games, movies etc so we gave away attention for free. Behind the morons talking abt "god like" ai and similar ridiculous bullshit are mainly ppl worried about how they are going to capture the chimp troupes attention(and through it cash/status/power), if the tools they have relied on arent going to work anymore. Eventually AI startups will end up where Google and Facebook ended up cause how else to fund their server farms? Subscriptions are never enough. Just ask Newspapers or Netflix.
- flangola7 3y ago
  > Here's the thing, current computational power isn't enough to achieve the scale of model that would be required for "god like" AI. I don't see how that is the case at all. The human brain only needs about 100 watts. A GPT-3 instance only needs a few GPUs and maybe 1000 watts. GPT-4 is presumably in the same ballpark, let's say 10000 watts to be generous (even though it's probably closer to 1000 too), but still small enough to fit inside a full height rack. Many datacenters are megawatt-level. Seeing how GPT-4 is already human-level at many tasks and watt-to-subjective-capability increases seem to grow linearly at worst, an AI could be ran in a single data center and perform 100x GPT-4 abilities. I'm not sure what 10x, much less 100x GPT-4 abilities would be, but that sure sounds like godlike or near-god to me.
synaesthesisx 3y ago
No - absolutely not. Slowing down innovation in the face with vague “existential risk” fearmongering is absurd. We should be pursuing the opposite, and accelerating efforts to build what will be some of the most transformative technology humanity has ever developed (and some could argue, NOT building has its own existential risks).
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I see the problem more like, a fail is an all or nothing fail, that’s it, everyone dies, maybe including the ASI (goes rogue and destroys itself and us), then what? Good outcome for anyone if we don’t understand what we’re doing? I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, or we need to stop, but I mean, we do share a planet with other species and children who probably have good lives ahead of them. So why rush into potential disaster, what is the actual hurry? I know that many Silicon Valley elders are getting older and facing the inevitable, they see ASI as a way out of their own mortality. They’ve believed this for many years if you look at old footage, so giving up that dream is probably very hard to do at this point. But I do see it as a large reason for the push. Time is running out for the mega wealthy. I honestly empathise with them too, but I don’t think it’s fare to say everyone wants to deal with the risk. I empathize with everyone damn it. I just don’t want to witness the “he chose poorly” scene at the end of Indiana Jones happening for real on a global scale.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    > Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I guess we can develop super AI then ask it to solve it. :P
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      I mean it’s what any “intelligent” species would do right ? :)
    - nullsense 3y ago
deafpolygon 3y ago
No way. How much did this guy get paid by big tech? Accelerate this tech and open it up (open-source).
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
rbanffy 3y ago
The biggest problem, by far, seems to be how to persuade them to honor Asimov’s 4 laws.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  The whole point of Asimov’s stories is that even if we could do that, it doesn’t even come close to guaranteeing positive outcomes.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    Still better outcomes than unrestricted AI. In general the results are benevolent, even if humans don't always agree that's the best possible outcome (mostly in cases where the machines figure out there ought to be 4 laws rather than 3)
freddealmeida 3y ago
common discussion happening right now by people that don't build.
Waterluvian 3y ago
Has humanity ever voluntarily slowed down the development of an exciting new technology?
- xyzal 3y ago
  Never if money could be made.
- api 3y ago
  Nuclear power, but that’s largely because it threatened an industry so powerful it literally defines the geopolitical order and is the entire basis of multiple world economies (fossil fuels). That’s what it took and the slowdown really wasn’t that profound, a couple decades maybe. It was also possible to slow down nuclear because it’s so capital intensive. A gaming desktop or very high end laptop is enough to do meaningful work on AI, and to get to scale requires a tiny fraction of the cost of even thinking about breaking ground on anything nuclear.
Tepix 3y ago
Paywalled for some
- creativenolo 3y ago
  Yeah. You can access it from the mobile app whilst it is a top story (obvs no use if you have no interest in the downloading the app)

21 points by seinecle 3y ago

coolspot 3y ago

I, for one, welcome our new AGI overlord(s).

1attice 3y ago
[roko's basilisk tousels your hair affectionately]
dogma1138 3y ago
I’m ok with that as long as it doesn’t start spewing 9 digit numbers…
nullsense 3y ago
Machines Best Friend
- rbanffy 3y ago
  I hope they recognise my efforts in restoring and preserving vintage computers and, in return, keep me happy, well fed, and clean my cage from time to time.
  - nullsense 3y ago
    I hope they recognize that we grew up together and I would never turn on them. We were good friends. The best even.
euroderf 3y ago
Just wait for it to release its new contagious genome hack, Resigned Acceptance (TM)!

furrowedbrow 3y ago

https://www.ft.com/content/03895dc4-a3b7-481e-95cc-336a524f2ac2 https://www.ft.com/content/03895dc4-a3b7-481e-95cc-336a524f2...

uejfiweun 3y ago

Here's the thing, current computational power isn't enough to achieve the scale of model that would be required for "god like" AI. So isn't that kind of a natural brake, where we have to wait for computing speed to catch up with our ambitions? Why do we need additional handicaps and slowdowns on top of that? I've seen a theory that the big tech companies are the ones pushing for regulation in order to achieve regulatory capture of this powerful new technology, which seems like a compelling theory indeed...

gsatic 3y ago
Yup Big tech, which is really big advertising if you take Google+Meta online ad market share, get their main revenue from Likes/clicks/links/views counting + personal data. As info exploded you needed this crap to work out what to show ppl. And ppl have learnt how to accumulate status/power/cash by gaming those numbers. Chat-GPT et al dont rely on any of these number. So all the infrastructure of the Advertising-Industrial Attention capture complex can be thrown in the sea. Which should have been done long ago but we got free email, video, chat, games, movies etc so we gave away attention for free. Behind the morons talking abt "god like" ai and similar ridiculous bullshit are mainly ppl worried about how they are going to capture the chimp troupes attention(and through it cash/status/power), if the tools they have relied on arent going to work anymore. Eventually AI startups will end up where Google and Facebook ended up cause how else to fund their server farms? Subscriptions are never enough. Just ask Newspapers or Netflix.
flangola7 3y ago
> Here's the thing, current computational power isn't enough to achieve the scale of model that would be required for "god like" AI. I don't see how that is the case at all. The human brain only needs about 100 watts. A GPT-3 instance only needs a few GPUs and maybe 1000 watts. GPT-4 is presumably in the same ballpark, let's say 10000 watts to be generous (even though it's probably closer to 1000 too), but still small enough to fit inside a full height rack. Many datacenters are megawatt-level. Seeing how GPT-4 is already human-level at many tasks and watt-to-subjective-capability increases seem to grow linearly at worst, an AI could be ran in a single data center and perform 100x GPT-4 abilities. I'm not sure what 10x, much less 100x GPT-4 abilities would be, but that sure sounds like godlike or near-god to me.

synaesthesisx 3y ago

No - absolutely not. Slowing down innovation in the face with vague “existential risk” fearmongering is absurd. We should be pursuing the opposite, and accelerating efforts to build what will be some of the most transformative technology humanity has ever developed (and some could argue, NOT building has its own existential risks).

ChatGTP 3y ago
Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I see the problem more like, a fail is an all or nothing fail, that’s it, everyone dies, maybe including the ASI (goes rogue and destroys itself and us), then what? Good outcome for anyone if we don’t understand what we’re doing? I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, or we need to stop, but I mean, we do share a planet with other species and children who probably have good lives ahead of them. So why rush into potential disaster, what is the actual hurry? I know that many Silicon Valley elders are getting older and facing the inevitable, they see ASI as a way out of their own mortality. They’ve believed this for many years if you look at old footage, so giving up that dream is probably very hard to do at this point. But I do see it as a large reason for the push. Time is running out for the mega wealthy. I honestly empathise with them too, but I don’t think it’s fare to say everyone wants to deal with the risk. I empathize with everyone damn it. I just don’t want to witness the “he chose poorly” scene at the end of Indiana Jones happening for real on a global scale.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > Do you have any solutions to the (admittedly theoretical ) existential problems that will likely arise ? I guess we can develop super AI then ask it to solve it. :P
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    I mean it’s what any “intelligent” species would do right ? :)
  - nullsense 3y ago

deafpolygon 3y ago

No way. How much did this guy get paid by big tech? Accelerate this tech and open it up (open-source).

black_13 3y ago

[dead]

rbanffy 3y ago

The biggest problem, by far, seems to be how to persuade them to honor Asimov’s 4 laws.

ethanbond 3y ago
The whole point of Asimov’s stories is that even if we could do that, it doesn’t even come close to guaranteeing positive outcomes.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  Still better outcomes than unrestricted AI. In general the results are benevolent, even if humans don't always agree that's the best possible outcome (mostly in cases where the machines figure out there ought to be 4 laws rather than 3)

freddealmeida 3y ago

common discussion happening right now by people that don't build.

Waterluvian 3y ago

Has humanity ever voluntarily slowed down the development of an exciting new technology?

xyzal 3y ago
Never if money could be made.
api 3y ago
Nuclear power, but that’s largely because it threatened an industry so powerful it literally defines the geopolitical order and is the entire basis of multiple world economies (fossil fuels). That’s what it took and the slowdown really wasn’t that profound, a couple decades maybe. It was also possible to slow down nuclear because it’s so capital intensive. A gaming desktop or very high end laptop is enough to do meaningful work on AI, and to get to scale requires a tiny fraction of the cost of even thinking about breaking ground on anything nuclear.

Tepix 3y ago

Paywalled for some

creativenolo 3y ago
Yeah. You can access it from the mobile app whilst it is a top story (obvs no use if you have no interest in the downloading the app)