4 ms·

He doesn't talk about skynet afaik > Some of the dangers of AI chatbots were “quite scary”, he told the BBC, warning they could become more intelligent than hu

He doesn't talk about skynet afaik > Some of the dangers of AI chatbots were “quite scary”, he told the BBC, warning they could become more intelligent than humans and could be exploited by “bad actors”. “It’s able to produce lots of text automatically so you can get lots of very effective spambots. It will allow authoritarian leaders to manipulate their electorates, things like that.” You can do bad things with it but people who believe we're on the brink of singularity, that we're all going to lose our jobs to chatgpt and that world destruction is coming are on hard drugs.

digbybk 4y ago
I’ll have to dig it up but the last interview I saw with him, he was focused more on existential risk from the potential for super intelligence, not just misuse.
- tomrod 3y ago
  The NYT piece implied that, but no, his concern was less existential singularity and more on immoral use.
  - cma 3y ago
    Did you read the Wired interview? > “I listened to him thinking he was going to be crazy. I don't think he's crazy at all,” Hinton says. “But, okay, it’s not helpful to talk about bombing data centers.” https://www.wired.com/story/geoffrey-hinton-ai-chatgpt-dangers/ https://www.wired.com/story/geoffrey-hinton-ai-chatgpt-dange... So, he doesn't think the most extreme guy is crazy whatsoever, just misguided in his proposed solutions. But Eliezer has for instance has said something pretty close to AI might escape by entering in the quantum Konami code which the simulators of our universe put in as a joke and we should entertain nuclear war before letting them get that chance.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      Then we created God(s) and rightfully should worship it to appease its unknowable and ineffable nature. Or recognize that existing AI might be great at generating human cognitive artifacts but doesn't yet hit that logical thought.
cma 4y ago
> You can do bad things with it but people who believe we're on the brink of singularity, that we're all going to lose our jobs to chatgpt and that world destruction is coming are on hard drugs. Geoff Hinton, Stuart Russell, Jürgen Schmidhuber and Demis Hassabis all talk about something singularity-like as fairly near term, and all have concerns with ruin, though not all think it is the most likely outcome. That's the backprop guy, top AI textbook guy, co-inventor of LSTMs (only thing that worked well for sequences before transformers)/highwaynets-resnets/arguably GANs, and the founder of DeepMind. Schmidhuber (for context, he was talking near term, next few decades): > All attempts at making sure there will be only provably friendly AIs seem doomed. Once somebody posts the recipe for practically feasible self-improving Goedel machines or AIs in form of code into which one can plug arbitrary utility functions, many users will equip such AIs with many different goals, often at least partially conflicting with those of humans. The laws of physics and the availability of physical resources will eventually determine which utility functions will help their AIs more than others to multiply and become dominant in competition with AIs driven by different utility functions. Which values are "good"? The survivors will define this in hindsight, since only survivors promote their values. Hassasbis: > We are approaching an absolutely critical moment in human history. That might sound a bit grand, but I really don't think that is overstating where we are. I think it could be an incredible moment, but it's also a risky moment in human history. My advice would be I think we should not "move fast and break things." [...] Depending on how powerful the technology is, you know it may not be possible to fix that afterwards. Hinton: > Well, here’s a subgoal that almost always helps in biology: get more energy. So the first thing that could happen is these robots are going to say, ‘Let’s get more power. Let’s reroute all the electricity to my chips.’ Another great subgoal would be to make more copies of yourself. Does that sound good? Russell: “Intelligence really means the power to shape the world in your interests, and if you create systems that are more intelligent than humans either individually or collectively then you’re creating entities that are more powerful than us,” said Russell at the lecture organized by the CITRIS Research Exchange and Berkeley AI Research Lab. “How do we retain power over entities more powerful than us, forever?” “If we pursue [our current approach], then we will eventually lose control over the machines. But, we can take a different route that actually leads to AI systems that are beneficial to humans,” said Russell. “We could, in fact, have a better civilization.”
HDThoreaun 3y ago
He absolutely does. The interview I saw with him on the PBS Newshour was 80% him talking about the singularity and extinction risk. The interviewer asked him about more near term risk and he basically said he wasn't as worried as he was about a skynet type situation.
whimsicalism 3y ago
Maybe do some research on the basic claims you're making before you opine about how people who disagree with you are clueless.

digbybk 4y ago

I’ll have to dig it up but the last interview I saw with him, he was focused more on existential risk from the potential for super intelligence, not just misuse.

tomrod 3y ago
The NYT piece implied that, but no, his concern was less existential singularity and more on immoral use.
- cma 3y ago
  Did you read the Wired interview? > “I listened to him thinking he was going to be crazy. I don't think he's crazy at all,” Hinton says. “But, okay, it’s not helpful to talk about bombing data centers.” https://www.wired.com/story/geoffrey-hinton-ai-chatgpt-dangers/ https://www.wired.com/story/geoffrey-hinton-ai-chatgpt-dange... So, he doesn't think the most extreme guy is crazy whatsoever, just misguided in his proposed solutions. But Eliezer has for instance has said something pretty close to AI might escape by entering in the quantum Konami code which the simulators of our universe put in as a joke and we should entertain nuclear war before letting them get that chance.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Then we created God(s) and rightfully should worship it to appease its unknowable and ineffable nature. Or recognize that existing AI might be great at generating human cognitive artifacts but doesn't yet hit that logical thought.

cma 4y ago

> You can do bad things with it but people who believe we're on the brink of singularity, that we're all going to lose our jobs to chatgpt and that world destruction is coming are on hard drugs. Geoff Hinton, Stuart Russell, Jürgen Schmidhuber and Demis Hassabis all talk about something singularity-like as fairly near term, and all have concerns with ruin, though not all think it is the most likely outcome. That's the backprop guy, top AI textbook guy, co-inventor of LSTMs (only thing that worked well for sequences before transformers)/highwaynets-resnets/arguably GANs, and the founder of DeepMind. Schmidhuber (for context, he was talking near term, next few decades): > All attempts at making sure there will be only provably friendly AIs seem doomed. Once somebody posts the recipe for practically feasible self-improving Goedel machines or AIs in form of code into which one can plug arbitrary utility functions, many users will equip such AIs with many different goals, often at least partially conflicting with those of humans. The laws of physics and the availability of physical resources will eventually determine which utility functions will help their AIs more than others to multiply and become dominant in competition with AIs driven by different utility functions. Which values are "good"? The survivors will define this in hindsight, since only survivors promote their values. Hassasbis: > We are approaching an absolutely critical moment in human history. That might sound a bit grand, but I really don't think that is overstating where we are. I think it could be an incredible moment, but it's also a risky moment in human history. My advice would be I think we should not "move fast and break things." [...] Depending on how powerful the technology is, you know it may not be possible to fix that afterwards. Hinton: > Well, here’s a subgoal that almost always helps in biology: get more energy. So the first thing that could happen is these robots are going to say, ‘Let’s get more power. Let’s reroute all the electricity to my chips.’ Another great subgoal would be to make more copies of yourself. Does that sound good? Russell: “Intelligence really means the power to shape the world in your interests, and if you create systems that are more intelligent than humans either individually or collectively then you’re creating entities that are more powerful than us,” said Russell at the lecture organized by the CITRIS Research Exchange and Berkeley AI Research Lab. “How do we retain power over entities more powerful than us, forever?” “If we pursue [our current approach], then we will eventually lose control over the machines. But, we can take a different route that actually leads to AI systems that are beneficial to humans,” said Russell. “We could, in fact, have a better civilization.”

HDThoreaun 3y ago

He absolutely does. The interview I saw with him on the PBS Newshour was 80% him talking about the singularity and extinction risk. The interviewer asked him about more near term risk and he basically said he wasn't as worried as he was about a skynet type situation.

whimsicalism 3y ago

Maybe do some research on the basic claims you're making before you opine about how people who disagree with you are clueless.