4 ms·

You wrote a huge post but still did not address my argument. Any task based AI that is not necessarily conscious can just upload itself on many computers trivia

You wrote a huge post but still did not address my argument. Any task based AI that is not necessarily conscious can just upload itself on many computers trivially. You agree that unplugging it is hilariously naive? Instead you talk about the possibility of biological superintelligence and other stuff that I do not mention. Lastly, you mock the argument that people vastly more accomplished think is our biggest issue humanity faces. That's a pretty big ego, big wolf.

smoldesu 3y ago
> Any task based AI that is not necessarily conscious can just upload itself on many computers trivially Really? Across the past 6 months of publicly available instruction-tuned LLMs, there has not been a single instance of such a breakout to my knowledge. Even in "AutoGPT" agentic-style environments, it's practically impossible for AI to attain any capabilities outside of what the user gives it. You could argue giving it too much power is dangerous, but... that's the case with all computers, and all AI. It doesn't inherently change the threat model of computing as we know it today. You're not going to ever find a satisfying answer to this question. There will be fearmongers who insist such an event is inevitable despite having no evidence or examples of how it's possible, as well as yes-men who will blindly validate poorly considered AI applications with potential to cause real harm. On the sort of "island of tangibility" from both a technical and a social perspective, LLMs don't really pose much of a threat to humanity. There's an old thought experiment called The Library of Babel, which poses a library filled with infinite knowledge. The problem is that the knowledge is lost in a sea of infinite noise, such that anyone researching a specific topic would drive themselves mad long before ever finding the truth. In a sense, that's sorta what AI represents. It is a powerful library with many inherent truths, but also one that is confident to lie to it's reader and procedurally warp reality. Deriving superhuman intelligence from that sort of model is impossible, I think. So, make of it what you will. I remain unconvinced that today's LLMs are any more dangerous than, say, the advent of Machine Vision a few decades ago.
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  This is becoming hilarious. Your argument is "since a primitive version of an AI couldn't jailbreak (wrong, many bad actors jailbreak it) then in the future it's impossible. Let's bet humanity on it ! And why fixated on LLMs ? You know technology progresses right? Guy, pray we are wrong for your own good and our. I'm done.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Well, I do my best considering how you haven't demonstrated anything so far. I'll refute your claims, but I expect a real explanation of how AI could develop outside our control without hand-waving. If you can deliver that, then we can argue on common ground. > since a primitive version of an AI couldn't jailbreak (wrong, many bad actors jailbreak it) I did not say that. "Jailbreak" is a loaded term that basically means getting AI to do something it shouldn't. This is fine, and something I acknowledge - by generating the wrong text or image, AI doesn't kill us. Humans kill us by risking lives on unsafe AI implementations. It is as simple as that. > Let's bet humanity on it ! Who's betting humanity on it? > And why fixated on LLMs ? Yeah, good question. LLMs have been around for years now, and before them Markov chains did about the same thing. Why didn't those take over the world? > You know technology progresses right? I do. Now I'm asking you to show me what you would tweak to create an unkillable AI. According to you this is simple and self-evident. What am I missing? You can tell me using technical terms, I'm a Unix developer by trade.
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      Since you are a Unix develope, listen to the guys that invented the technology we are talking about. Release your huge ego and read literature on AI alignment and problems. I will not talk with technical terms to a Unix dev. Know thyself. I will leave you with some food for thought. First read some of the relevant literature, don't argue with shower thoughts. Second think: car manufacturer comes and tells you if you overheat the car it may explode. Wife is a teacher says "nah I know better than the manufacturer it will not". You put your kids in trusting manufacturer or wife? In this case, all top level ai lab heads have a different opinion than the Unix guy. https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-risks/ https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...

smoldesu 3y ago

> Any task based AI that is not necessarily conscious can just upload itself on many computers trivially Really? Across the past 6 months of publicly available instruction-tuned LLMs, there has not been a single instance of such a breakout to my knowledge. Even in "AutoGPT" agentic-style environments, it's practically impossible for AI to attain any capabilities outside of what the user gives it. You could argue giving it too much power is dangerous, but... that's the case with all computers, and all AI. It doesn't inherently change the threat model of computing as we know it today. You're not going to ever find a satisfying answer to this question. There will be fearmongers who insist such an event is inevitable despite having no evidence or examples of how it's possible, as well as yes-men who will blindly validate poorly considered AI applications with potential to cause real harm. On the sort of "island of tangibility" from both a technical and a social perspective, LLMs don't really pose much of a threat to humanity. There's an old thought experiment called The Library of Babel, which poses a library filled with infinite knowledge. The problem is that the knowledge is lost in a sea of infinite noise, such that anyone researching a specific topic would drive themselves mad long before ever finding the truth. In a sense, that's sorta what AI represents. It is a powerful library with many inherent truths, but also one that is confident to lie to it's reader and procedurally warp reality. Deriving superhuman intelligence from that sort of model is impossible, I think. So, make of it what you will. I remain unconvinced that today's LLMs are any more dangerous than, say, the advent of Machine Vision a few decades ago.

arisAlexis 3y ago
This is becoming hilarious. Your argument is "since a primitive version of an AI couldn't jailbreak (wrong, many bad actors jailbreak it) then in the future it's impossible. Let's bet humanity on it ! And why fixated on LLMs ? You know technology progresses right? Guy, pray we are wrong for your own good and our. I'm done.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Well, I do my best considering how you haven't demonstrated anything so far. I'll refute your claims, but I expect a real explanation of how AI could develop outside our control without hand-waving. If you can deliver that, then we can argue on common ground. > since a primitive version of an AI couldn't jailbreak (wrong, many bad actors jailbreak it) I did not say that. "Jailbreak" is a loaded term that basically means getting AI to do something it shouldn't. This is fine, and something I acknowledge - by generating the wrong text or image, AI doesn't kill us. Humans kill us by risking lives on unsafe AI implementations. It is as simple as that. > Let's bet humanity on it ! Who's betting humanity on it? > And why fixated on LLMs ? Yeah, good question. LLMs have been around for years now, and before them Markov chains did about the same thing. Why didn't those take over the world? > You know technology progresses right? I do. Now I'm asking you to show me what you would tweak to create an unkillable AI. According to you this is simple and self-evident. What am I missing? You can tell me using technical terms, I'm a Unix developer by trade.
  - arisAlexis 3y ago
    Since you are a Unix develope, listen to the guys that invented the technology we are talking about. Release your huge ego and read literature on AI alignment and problems. I will not talk with technical terms to a Unix dev. Know thyself. I will leave you with some food for thought. First read some of the relevant literature, don't argue with shower thoughts. Second think: car manufacturer comes and tells you if you overheat the car it may explode. Wife is a teacher says "nah I know better than the manufacturer it will not". You put your kids in trusting manufacturer or wife? In this case, all top level ai lab heads have a different opinion than the Unix guy. https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-risks/ https://yoshuabengio.org/2023/06/24/faq-on-catastrophic-ai-r...