3 ms·

I can think of at least a dozen ways to completely ruin the internet or even society using SOTA/next-gen LLMs/GenAIs, we'll be in trouble way before the singula

I can think of at least a dozen ways to completely ruin the internet or even society using SOTA/next-gen LLMs/GenAIs, we'll be in trouble way before the singularity. A ton of legit researchers/experts are scared shitless. Just spend 5 minutes on EleutherAI discord(which is mostly volunteers, academics, and hobbyists, not lobbyists), read a tiny bit on alignment and you'll be scared too.

vladms 3y ago
Same can be said by a lot of technologies (or pandemics, or climate change). Imagination is a tool - using it for what it can go bad does not seem to be the the most efficient way to use it.
- FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
  IMO the next gen AI are going to be tiny nukes that middle schoolers could play with on their iPhones. AI regulation is as needed as radioactive material regulation. Nuclear energy is great, Hiroshima not so much.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    How does that look like in practice ? What do those nukes do?
random3 3y ago
You seem to make an assumption that the models will only land producers, and not consumers. Why? Asymmetrical compute power? The difference will likely be in size (amount of facts compressed) not capability / ability to detect bullshit. This said, the trouble is machines may close the gaps in skills faster than we can comprehend and able to adjust. This means quality of life for people may decrease faster from loss of use than it increases from gains (which need to be relatively evenly distributed). This suggests that everyone should own the compute/storage and ability to enhance themselves.
- pk-protect-ai 3y ago
  I have no doubt that machines will close the gaps in skills faster than humans will comprehend, however even AGI will have an owner. And if it is Sam Altman, then this dystopian future even more horrible then thousands of hackers running their own AGIs.
esafak 3y ago
What's the gist; what are they scared of? Misinformation, and unemployment?
pk-protect-ai 3y ago
If you have ample resources, you don't need next-gen LLMs or AGI. You can accomplish this now, without any fancy, hyped technology. Literally, none of the things LLM or AGI could propose or manage to do to harm us is worse than what we can do to ourselves. For AGI, you need a significant amount of resources to develop, train, and use it. To inflict harm, the brute force of a simple human mind in uniform is much cheaper and more effective.
- FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
  The point is, it greatly reduces the amount of resources needed to do some serious damage, as well as the level of sophistication needed. You don't need AGI to do damage, current LLMs are already dangerous. IMO, an open-source affordable unfiltered GPT-5 would ruin the internet in a few months.
  - shawn-butler 3y ago
    Provide a specific example of what you have in mind to further the conversation not just more opining on “dangerous” is my suggestion.
    - FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
      Tailored propaganda, scams, spams, and harassment at a scale that was never seen before. Plugging metasploit into an unfiltered GPT-5 with a shell and a few proxies could be devastating. Undetectable and unstoppable bots would be available to anyone. Don't like someone? You could spend a hundred bucks to ruin their life anonymously. Each of us could unknowingly interact with multiple LLMs everyday which would only have one purpose: manipulate us with a never-seen before success rate at a lower cost than ever. At some point AI generated content could become more common than human content, while still being indistinguishable. Good enough automated online propaganda could routinely start (civil)wars or genocides, Facebook already let that happen in the past, manipulating elections would become systematical even in the most democratic countries. What already happened in those areas in the last few years, is really nothing compared to what could happen without enough regulation or barriers to entry in the next few years. What's worse is that all of this, would not just be possible, but available to every sociopath on earth, not just the rich ones.
hatenberg 3y ago
Both can be true: Big companies can lobby for protection and there being risk in the technology that broad diffusion creates additional risks. Cat's out of the bag though - we're still trading mp3s decades after napster, this ghost won't go back into the bottle and realistically, most of the risks people flag are not AI risks, they are societal risks where our existing failure to regulate and create consensus have already gone past the red line (election interference, etc).
gmerc 3y ago
The internet is already being ruined with access to chatGPT, the spammers haven’t even figured out how to use LLama for the most part. So really, wrong tree to bark up to- the problem is that our existing way of doing things can’t survive AI and you can’t regulate that away as you couldn’t make gunpowder disappear to avoid your city walls no longer working

vladms 3y ago

Same can be said by a lot of technologies (or pandemics, or climate change). Imagination is a tool - using it for what it can go bad does not seem to be the the most efficient way to use it.

FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
IMO the next gen AI are going to be tiny nukes that middle schoolers could play with on their iPhones. AI regulation is as needed as radioactive material regulation. Nuclear energy is great, Hiroshima not so much.
- gmerc 3y ago
  How does that look like in practice ? What do those nukes do?

random3 3y ago

You seem to make an assumption that the models will only land producers, and not consumers. Why? Asymmetrical compute power? The difference will likely be in size (amount of facts compressed) not capability / ability to detect bullshit. This said, the trouble is machines may close the gaps in skills faster than we can comprehend and able to adjust. This means quality of life for people may decrease faster from loss of use than it increases from gains (which need to be relatively evenly distributed). This suggests that everyone should own the compute/storage and ability to enhance themselves.

pk-protect-ai 3y ago
I have no doubt that machines will close the gaps in skills faster than humans will comprehend, however even AGI will have an owner. And if it is Sam Altman, then this dystopian future even more horrible then thousands of hackers running their own AGIs.

esafak 3y ago

What's the gist; what are they scared of? Misinformation, and unemployment?

pk-protect-ai 3y ago

If you have ample resources, you don't need next-gen LLMs or AGI. You can accomplish this now, without any fancy, hyped technology. Literally, none of the things LLM or AGI could propose or manage to do to harm us is worse than what we can do to ourselves. For AGI, you need a significant amount of resources to develop, train, and use it. To inflict harm, the brute force of a simple human mind in uniform is much cheaper and more effective.

FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
The point is, it greatly reduces the amount of resources needed to do some serious damage, as well as the level of sophistication needed. You don't need AGI to do damage, current LLMs are already dangerous. IMO, an open-source affordable unfiltered GPT-5 would ruin the internet in a few months.
- shawn-butler 3y ago
  Provide a specific example of what you have in mind to further the conversation not just more opining on “dangerous” is my suggestion.
  - FrenchDevRemote 3y ago
    Tailored propaganda, scams, spams, and harassment at a scale that was never seen before. Plugging metasploit into an unfiltered GPT-5 with a shell and a few proxies could be devastating. Undetectable and unstoppable bots would be available to anyone. Don't like someone? You could spend a hundred bucks to ruin their life anonymously. Each of us could unknowingly interact with multiple LLMs everyday which would only have one purpose: manipulate us with a never-seen before success rate at a lower cost than ever. At some point AI generated content could become more common than human content, while still being indistinguishable. Good enough automated online propaganda could routinely start (civil)wars or genocides, Facebook already let that happen in the past, manipulating elections would become systematical even in the most democratic countries. What already happened in those areas in the last few years, is really nothing compared to what could happen without enough regulation or barriers to entry in the next few years. What's worse is that all of this, would not just be possible, but available to every sociopath on earth, not just the rich ones.

hatenberg 3y ago

Both can be true: Big companies can lobby for protection and there being risk in the technology that broad diffusion creates additional risks. Cat's out of the bag though - we're still trading mp3s decades after napster, this ghost won't go back into the bottle and realistically, most of the risks people flag are not AI risks, they are societal risks where our existing failure to regulate and create consensus have already gone past the red line (election interference, etc).

gmerc 3y ago

The internet is already being ruined with access to chatGPT, the spammers haven’t even figured out how to use LLama for the most part. So really, wrong tree to bark up to- the problem is that our existing way of doing things can’t survive AI and you can’t regulate that away as you couldn’t make gunpowder disappear to avoid your city walls no longer working