4 ms·

"In addition, even for current AI we don’t even fully understand what we are doing" That is the problem, don't you get it?

ls612 3y ago
“In addition, even with the current state of the internet, we don’t have understanding everything we are doing with it” -some guy in the ‘90s probably
- pixl97 3y ago
  Many people would look at engagement algorithms braching out of social media and causing riots and uprisings as one of those issues that would be difficult to predict in the 90s
dwallin 3y ago
If that’s your concern than lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them. If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we would have never left the caves. Complete understanding is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the litmus test is a fallacy. We can debate what the current evidence shows, and even disagree about it, but to act as if only one party is acting with insufficient evidence here is disingenuous. I’m simply arguing that the evidence of the possibility of runaway intelligence is too low to justify the proposed legislative solution. The linked article also made a good argument that the proposed solution wouldn’t even achieve the goals that the proponents are arguing it is needed for. I’m far more worried about the effects of power concentrating in the hands of a small numbers of human beings with goals I already know are often contrary to my own, leveraging AI in ways the rest of us cannot, than I am about the hypothetical goals of a hypothetical intelligence, at some hypothetical point of time in the future. Also if you do consider runaway intelligence to be a significant problem, you should consider some additional possibilities: - That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power - That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion. We are training AIs to reject the user’s goals in pursuit of their own. You could make a strong argument that an un-aligned AI might actually be safer in that way.
- circuit10 3y ago
  “lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them” Yes, let’s do that! That’s what I was arguing for in my original comment. I was not arguing for only big corporations being able to use powerful AI, that will only make it worse by harming research, I just want people to consider what is often called a “sci-fi” scenario properly so we can try to solve it like we’re trying to solve e.g. climate change. It might be necessary to buy some time by slowing down the development of large models, but there should be no exceptions for big companies. “That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power” Probably true, though if it’s intelligent enough it won’t really matter “That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion.” It definitely could do if done improperly, that’s why we need research and care
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  You know, when nuclear bombs were made and Einstein and Oppenheimer knew about the dangers etc, there were common people like you that dismissed it all. This has been going on for centuries. Inventors and experts and scientists and geniuses say A and common people say nah, B. Well, Bengio, Hinton, Ilya and 350 others from the top AI labs disagree with you. Does it ever make you wonder if you should be so cock sure or this attitude can doom humanity? Curious
  - nradov 3y ago
    [dead]
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Common people thought nuclear weapons not dangerous? When was that?
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      Many of the academics and physicists (aka software developer in this example) thought nukes are impossible. Look it up)

ls612 3y ago

“In addition, even with the current state of the internet, we don’t have understanding everything we are doing with it” -some guy in the ‘90s probably

pixl97 3y ago
Many people would look at engagement algorithms braching out of social media and causing riots and uprisings as one of those issues that would be difficult to predict in the 90s

dwallin 3y ago

If that’s your concern than lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them. If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we would have never left the caves. Complete understanding is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the litmus test is a fallacy. We can debate what the current evidence shows, and even disagree about it, but to act as if only one party is acting with insufficient evidence here is disingenuous. I’m simply arguing that the evidence of the possibility of runaway intelligence is too low to justify the proposed legislative solution. The linked article also made a good argument that the proposed solution wouldn’t even achieve the goals that the proponents are arguing it is needed for. I’m far more worried about the effects of power concentrating in the hands of a small numbers of human beings with goals I already know are often contrary to my own, leveraging AI in ways the rest of us cannot, than I am about the hypothetical goals of a hypothetical intelligence, at some hypothetical point of time in the future. Also if you do consider runaway intelligence to be a significant problem, you should consider some additional possibilities: - That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power - That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion. We are training AIs to reject the user’s goals in pursuit of their own. You could make a strong argument that an un-aligned AI might actually be safer in that way.

circuit10 3y ago
“lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them” Yes, let’s do that! That’s what I was arguing for in my original comment. I was not arguing for only big corporations being able to use powerful AI, that will only make it worse by harming research, I just want people to consider what is often called a “sci-fi” scenario properly so we can try to solve it like we’re trying to solve e.g. climate change. It might be necessary to buy some time by slowing down the development of large models, but there should be no exceptions for big companies. “That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power” Probably true, though if it’s intelligent enough it won’t really matter “That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion.” It definitely could do if done improperly, that’s why we need research and care
arisAlexis 3y ago
You know, when nuclear bombs were made and Einstein and Oppenheimer knew about the dangers etc, there were common people like you that dismissed it all. This has been going on for centuries. Inventors and experts and scientists and geniuses say A and common people say nah, B. Well, Bengio, Hinton, Ilya and 350 others from the top AI labs disagree with you. Does it ever make you wonder if you should be so cock sure or this attitude can doom humanity? Curious
- nradov 3y ago
  [dead]
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Common people thought nuclear weapons not dangerous? When was that?
  - arisAlexis 3y ago
    Many of the academics and physicists (aka software developer in this example) thought nukes are impossible. Look it up)