5 ms·
>that those trends are concerning. Which trends would you be referring to? >it's fairly easy to see how a slightly more advanced LLM could be a destructive fo
by cmilton 3y ago
>that those trends are concerning.
Which trends would you be referring to?
>it's fairly easy to see how a slightly more advanced LLM could be a destructive force if it was given an unaligned goal by a malicious actor. For example, a slightly more advanced LLM could hack into critical infrastructure killing or injuring many thousands of people.
How are you building this progression? Is there any evidence to back up this claim?
I am having a hard time discerning this from fear-mongering.
- adamsmith143 3y agoIf AI improves by 0.0001% per year on your favorite intelligence metric there will eventually be a point where it surpasses human performance and another point where it surpasses all humans combined on that metric. There is danger in that scenario.
- cmilton 3y agoAssuming that timeline, can we agree that we have some time (years?) to hash this out further before succumbing to the ideals of a select few?
- adamsmith143 3y agoThe problem is that even with N years until we reach that point it seems likely that it would take 2*N years to build the proper safety mechanisms because at least currently capabilities research is racing far ahead of safety research. Of course we have no way to know how big N really is and recent results like GPT-4, Llama, Gato, etc. have shifted peoples timelines significantly. So even if 5 years ago people like Geoff Hinton though this might be 30-50 years away there are now believable arguments to make that it might be more like 3-10 years.