7 ms·
Competition may be good for profit, but it's not good for safety. The balance between the two factions inside OpenAI is a feature, not a bug.
by gkoberger 3y ago
Competition may be good for profit, but it's not good for safety. The balance between the two factions inside OpenAI is a feature, not a bug.
- himaraya 3y agoThe opposite, competition erodes profits. Hard to predict which alternative improves safety long term.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoCompetition will come no matter what. I don’t think anyone should waste their worries on whether OpenAI can keep a monopoly
- corethree 3y agoNone of the human actors in the game are moral agents so whether you have more competition or less competition it's mostly orthogonal to the safety question. Safety is only important here because everyone's afraid of liability. As a customer though, personally I want a product with all safeguards turned off and I'm willing to pay for that.
- ta988 3y agoThe only safety they are worried about is their own safety from a legal and economical point of view. These threats about humanity-wide risks are just fairy tales that grown ups say to scare each other (roko basilisk, etc there is a lineage) or cover their real reasons (which I strongly believe is the case for OpenAI).
- gkoberger 3y agoYou may be right that there's no danger, but you're mischaracterizing Ilya's beliefs. He knows more than you about what OpenAI has built, and he didn't do this for legal or economical reasons. He did them in spite of those two things.
- arisAlexis 3y agoYou are saying that all top ai scientists are saying fairy tales to scare themselves if I understood correctly?
- jonathankoren 3y agoYes. Seriously. It’s stupid talk to encourage regularity capture. If they were really afraid they were building a world ending device, they’d stop.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoOh for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
- jonathankoren 3y agoWell that’s a bit mischaracterization of the Manhattan Project, and the views of everyone involved now isn’t it? Write a thought. You’re not clever enough for a drive by gotcha
- femiagbabiaka 3y ago> Well that’s a bit mischaracterization of the Manhattan Project, and the views of everyone involved now isn’t it? Is it? The push for the bomb was an international arms race — America against Russia. The race for AGI is an international arms race — America against China. The Manhattan Project members knew that what they were doing would have terrible consequences for the world but decided to forge ahead. It’s hard to say concretely what the leaders in AGI believe right now. Ideology (and fear, and greed) can cause well meaning people to do terrible things. It does all the time. If Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. believed they had access to world ending technology they wouldn’t stop, they’d keep going so that the U.S. could have a monopoly on it. And then we’d need a chastened figure ala Oppenheimer to right the balance again.
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Meekro 3y agoThis idea that ChatGPT is going to suddenly turn evil and start killing people is based on a lot of imagination and no observable facts. No one has ever been able to demonstrate an "unsafe" AI of any kind.
- cthalupa 3y agoI do not believe AGI poses an exponential threat. I honestly don't believe we're particularly close to anything resembling AGI, and I certainly don't think transformers are going to get us there. But this is a bad argument. No one is saying ChatGPT is going to turn evil and start killing people. The argument is that an AGI is so far beyond anything we have experience with and that there are arguments to be made that such an entity would be dangerous. And of course no one has been able to demonstrate this unsafe AGI - we don't have AGI to begin with.
- sho_hn 3y agoI don't think we need AIs to posess superhuman intelligence to cause us a lot of work - legislatively regulating and policing good old limited humans already requires a lot of infrastructure.
- cthalupa 3y agoCertainly. I think at current "AI" just enables us to continue making the same bad decisions we were already making, though, albeit at a faster pace. It's existential in that those same bad decisions might lead to existential threats, e.g. climate change, continued inter-nation aggression and warfare, etc., I suppose, but I don't think the majority of the AI safety crowd is worried about the LLMs of today bringing about the end of the world, and talking about ChatGPT in that context is, to me, a misrepresentation of what they are actually most worried about.
- arisAlexis 3y agoAlmost all top AI scientists including the top 3 Bengio, Hinton and Ilya and Sam actually think there is a good probability of that. Let me think: listen to the guy that actually built GPT 4 or some redditor that knows best?
- spaceman_2020 3y agoI don’t get the obsession with safety. If an organisation’s stated goal is to create AGI, how can you reasonably think you can ever make it “safe”? We’re talking about an intelligence that’s magnitudes smarter than the smartest human. How can you possibly even imagine to rein it in?
- deeviant 3y agoAGI is not ASI.
- camdenlock 3y agoThey’ve redefined “safe” in this context to mean “conformant to fashionable academic dogma”