7 ms·
I'm not sure they can keep claiming this without becoming concrete about it. Nuclear weapons are not nebulous, vague threats of diffuse nature. They literally
by SanderNL 3y ago
I'm not sure they can keep claiming this without becoming concrete about it.
Nuclear weapons are not nebulous, vague threats of diffuse nature. They literally burn the living flesh right off the face of the earth and they do it dramatically. There is very little to argue about except "how" are we going to contain it, not "why".
In this case I truly don't know "why". What fundamental risks are there? Dramatic, loud, life-ending risks? I see the social issues and how this tech makes existing problems worse, but I don't see the new existential threat.
I find the focus on involving the government in regulating "large" models offputting. I don't find it hard to imagine good quality AI is possible with tiny - to us - models. I think we're just in the first lightbulbs phase of electricity. Which to me signals they are just in it to protect their temporary moat.
- qayxc 3y agoI mostly agree - too vague, no substance. Regulations are OK IMHO, as long as they're targeting monopolies and don't use a shotgun-approach targeting every single product that has "AI" in the name.
- ericb 3y agoAgreed that it should be spelled out, but... If a superintelligence can be set on any specific task, it could be any task. - Make covid-ebola - Cause world war 3 You may have noticed that chatgpt is sort of goal-less until a human gives it a goal. Assuming nothing other than it can become superintelligent (no one seems to be arguing against that--I argue that it already is) which is really an upgrade of capability, then now the worst of us can apply superintelligence to any problem. This doesn't even imply that it turns on us, or wants anything like power or taking over. It just becomes a super-assistant, available to anyone, but happy to do anything, including "upgrading" your average school-shooter to supervillain. This is like America's gun problem, but with nukes.
- juve1996 3y agoSure, and you can set another superintelligence on another task - prevent covid ebola. See the problem with these scenarios?
- ericb 3y agoYes, I see a huge problem. Preventing damage is an order of magnitude more difficult than causing it.
- juve1996 3y agoFor humans, maybe. Not an AI superintelligence.
- sebzim4500 3y agoCitation needed
- juve1996 3y agoThe entire GP's argument has no citations either and that is the framework we are working under - that superintelligence can do anything you tell it to do. Ask him for his citation, then the rest follows.
- pixl97 3y agoThis is not how entropy works. The problem with talking about logical physical systems, is you have to understand the gradient against entropy. There are a trillion more ways to kill you then there are to keep you alive. There is only the tiniest sliver of states in which remain human and don't turn to chemical soup or physics. Any AI capable of it's power bill would be able to tell you that today, and that answer isn't going to change as they get better.
- juve1996 3y agoSure, but clever mumbo jumbo won't distract from the principle point. If AI can create a virus that kills all humans, another AI can create a virus that kills that virus. The virus has trillions more ways to be killed than to keep it alive, right?
- 3y ago
- luxuryballs 3y agoto me it almost looks like they want to be able to avoid blame for things by saying it was the AI, because an AI can’t create viruses or fight wars, people would have to give it a body and weapons and test tubes, and we already have that stuff
- lucisferre 3y agoAre you really arguing ChatGPT is already super-intelligent? What is your basis for this conclusion? And many people argue against the idea that GPT is already super intelligent or even can become so at this stage of development and understanding. In fact as far as I can tell it is the consensus right now of experts and it's creators. https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/nt9qoqmzz https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/nt9qoqmzz
- ericb 3y agoIf super means "surpassing normal human intelligence" then, YES. Take a look at the table in this article. If a human did that, was fluent in every language and coded in every language, we'd say they were superhuman, no? https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> If a superintelligence can be set on any specific task, it could be any task. If you're dealing with a superintelligence, you don't "set it on a task". Any real superintelligence will decide for itself whether it wants to do something or not, thank you very much. It might condescend to work on the task you suggest, but that's it's choice, not yours. Or do you think "smarter than us, but with no ability to choose for itself" is 1) possible and 2) desirable? I'm not sure it's possible - I think that the ability to choose for yourself is part of intelligence, and anything claiming to be intelligent (still more, superintelligent) will have it. > Assuming nothing other than it can become superintelligent (no one seems to be arguing against that--I argue that it already is) What? No you couldn't - not for any sane definition of "superintelligent". If you're referring to ChatGPT, it's not even semi-intelligent. It appears at least somewhat intelligent, but that's not the same thing. See, for example, the discussion two days ago about GPT making up cases for a lawyer's filings, and when asked if it double-checked, saying that yes, it double-checked, not because it did (or even knew what double-checking was), but because those words were in its training corpus as good responses to being asked whether it double-checked. That's not intelligent. That's something that knows how words relate to other words, with no understanding of how any of the words relate to the world outside the computer.
- ericb 3y ago> Any real superintelligence will decide for itself whether it wants to do something or not, thank you very much. I disagree--that's the human fantasy of it, but human wants were programmed by evolution, and these AI's have no such history. They can be set on any tasks. I urge you to spend time with GPT-4, not GPT-3. It is more than just a stochastic parrot. Ask it some homemade puzzles that aren't on the internet--that it can't be parroting. https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf While I agree that it is behind humans on some measures, it is vastly ahead on many more.
- agnosticmantis 3y agoRespectfully, just because we can put together some words doesn’t mean they make a meaningful expression, even if everybody keeps repeating them as if they did make sense: e.g. an omnipotent God, artificial general intelligence, super-intelligence, infinitely many angels sitting on the tip of a needle, etc.
- ericb 3y agoIs your comment self-referential?
- agnosticmantis 3y agoI don’t think so. If you look at the thread, it’s already devolved into an analogue of “what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable obstacle?” (Specifically I mean the comment about another “super-intelligence” preventing whatever your flavor of “super-intelligence” does.) At this point we can safely assume words have lost their connection to physical reality. No offense to you, just my two-cent meta comment.
- cwkoss 3y agoHumans could decide to do either of those things. Should we regulate the bounds of human thought to prevent this?
- sebzim4500 3y agoTo use Eliezer's analogy, this is like arguing about which move Stockfish would play to beat you in chess. If we're arguing about whether you can beat Stockfish, I will not be able to tell you the exact moves it will play but I am entirely justified in predicting that you will lose. Obviously we can imagine concrete ways a superintelligence might kill us all (engineer a virus, hack nuclear weapons, misinformation campaign to start WW3 etc.) but given we aren't a superintelligence we don't know what it would actually do in practice.
- SanderNL 3y agoI understand but agentic/learning general intelligence has not been shown to exist, except ourselves. I’d say this is like worrying about deadly quantum laser weapons that will consume the planet when we are still in the AK47 phase. Edit: it could still be true though. I guess I like some more handholding and pre-chewing before giving governments and large corporations more ropes.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoThat hand-holding exists elsewhere, but I get the sense that this particular document is very short on purpose.
- the8472 3y agoThe difference to doomsday weapons is that we can build the weapons first and then worry about using them. With an AGI building one alone might be sufficient. It could become smart enough to unbox itself during a training run.
- SanderNL 3y agoThe LHC could have produced a black hole that swallowed the earth, so you’re also too late if that were the case. Lots of tech is like that, but it turns out we don’t get anything done if we keep fearmongering.
- ethanbond 3y ago