3 ms·

>No, we control the data, the deterministic learning rule, weights and activations, every step of the way is controllable In some instances, Saying we control

>No, we control the data, the deterministic learning rule, weights and activations, every step of the way is controllable In some instances, Saying we control the data is pretty meh when we currently just chock much of the entire web as "data". >Moreover, if it were tractable, would we know what to do? Obviously we don't know what to do. Deep learning wouldn't be necessary otherwise. >How would that be different from the problem of programming an AI from scratch? You don't understand what would be different from knowing and personally implementing all the processes Intelligent systems use to operate in terms of alignment? >No, the idea that human mental architecture is safer (and that DL does not approximate it) is very much at the core of alignment fears. I don't understand your obsession with underpinning your arguments with notes from the lesswrong crowd. There's a big AI safety statement signed by a lot of academics below who have nothing to do with lesswrong. Lesswrong isn't be all end all of alignment fears. I really don't care about lesswrong. You obviously read the forum a lot more than I do. >You define intelligence in a certain way that has nothing to do with how you identify it in the wild. I define intelligence fine. Alignment fears are obviously geared towards General SuperIntelligence that can perform General goals. Nobody thinks Stockfish or AlphaGo is going to end the world. In recent months there's been a general direction to grant LLMs more and more agency, embodiment and tool control. They're being "plugged" into everything. Palantir even has a military use LLM they're excitedly showcasing. They're several popular repos that give control of your terminal and browser to LLMs. The moment we built something showcasing strong general intelligence, we began to use it to make cognitive decisions and take actions in our stead. Now an LLM browses the web for you. And as soon as June with Windows, it'll control your computer for you as well. I'm not advocating to stop any of this but I'm not delusional about how potentially dangerous the direction is. If anything this recent LLM era has shown, it's that general AI won't need to escape any "box" because two sides will be missing.

mrtranscendence 3y ago
I’m more on the side of not worrying about AI just yet, but seeing a lesswrong devotee complain about “para-intellectual hothouses” got a real chuckle out of me.
- airgapstopgap 3y ago
  I am the opposite of lesswrong devotee. Chuckle at yourself for thinking that posts about "grokking" on alignmentforum.org are anything more than lesswrong with a fresh coat of paint. What next, cite intelligence.org for expertise on strong AI, without realizing it's the same Yudkowsky?
airgapstopgap 3y ago
> You don't understand what would be different from knowing and personally implementing I am arguing that the absence of knowledge makes the absence of control irrelevant. We don't know how to do any better than the learning rule. > I don't understand your obsession with underpinning your arguments with notes from the lesswrong crowd. There's a big AI safety statement signed by a lot of academics This is incredibly disingenuous. Hinton or Bengio argue sophomoric ideas that have been discussed to death on Lesswrong decades ago. Your own link would have been impossible without Lesswrong tradition, it's literally written by lesswrongers on a sister community largely hijacked by lesswrongers. Everything of intellectual content that there is to alignment research is basically Lesswrong paradigm, you argue MIRI talking points too. Attempting to abandon it as a low-status association is just nasty.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  >I am arguing that the absence of knowledge makes the absence of control irrelevant. But it doesn't lol. Just because we don't know any better doesn't mean the current way isn't any less potentially dangerous. >Your own link would have been impossible without Lesswrong tradition, it's literally written by lesswrongers on a sister community largely hijacked by lesswrongers. This is the point I'm making lol. You knew this, I didn't. I came across something I found interesting and I shared it. That's it. I know alignmentforum even less than I know lesswrong >Attempting to abandon it as a low-status association is just nasty. I'm not a lesswronger. I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm just not. I think you have issues you need have to deal with. Good day

mrtranscendence 3y ago

I’m more on the side of not worrying about AI just yet, but seeing a lesswrong devotee complain about “para-intellectual hothouses” got a real chuckle out of me.

airgapstopgap 3y ago
I am the opposite of lesswrong devotee. Chuckle at yourself for thinking that posts about "grokking" on alignmentforum.org are anything more than lesswrong with a fresh coat of paint. What next, cite intelligence.org for expertise on strong AI, without realizing it's the same Yudkowsky?

airgapstopgap 3y ago

> You don't understand what would be different from knowing and personally implementing I am arguing that the absence of knowledge makes the absence of control irrelevant. We don't know how to do any better than the learning rule. > I don't understand your obsession with underpinning your arguments with notes from the lesswrong crowd. There's a big AI safety statement signed by a lot of academics This is incredibly disingenuous. Hinton or Bengio argue sophomoric ideas that have been discussed to death on Lesswrong decades ago. Your own link would have been impossible without Lesswrong tradition, it's literally written by lesswrongers on a sister community largely hijacked by lesswrongers. Everything of intellectual content that there is to alignment research is basically Lesswrong paradigm, you argue MIRI talking points too. Attempting to abandon it as a low-status association is just nasty.

famouswaffles 3y ago
>I am arguing that the absence of knowledge makes the absence of control irrelevant. But it doesn't lol. Just because we don't know any better doesn't mean the current way isn't any less potentially dangerous. >Your own link would have been impossible without Lesswrong tradition, it's literally written by lesswrongers on a sister community largely hijacked by lesswrongers. This is the point I'm making lol. You knew this, I didn't. I came across something I found interesting and I shared it. That's it. I know alignmentforum even less than I know lesswrong >Attempting to abandon it as a low-status association is just nasty. I'm not a lesswronger. I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm just not. I think you have issues you need have to deal with. Good day