3 ms·
I wouldn't mind a focus on reliably following tasks with greater intelligence; what I think is negative utility is focusing more compute and research resources
by reissbaker 3y ago
I wouldn't mind a focus on reliably following tasks with greater intelligence; what I think is negative utility is focusing more compute and research resources on hypothetical superintelligence alignment — the entire focus of Ilya's "Superalignment" project — when GPT-4 is still way, way sub-human-intelligence. For example, I don't think the GPT Store was in any way a dangerous idea, which seems to have been Ilya's claimed safety red line.
- yeck 3y agoI wouldn't call GPT-4 sub-human intelligence. While it's intelligence is less robust aggregate human intelligence, I don't think there is any one person alive who can compete with the breadth of GPT-4 knowledge. I also think that the potential of what currently is possible with existing models has not been fully realized. Good prompting strategies and reflection may already be able to produce a system that is effectively AGI. Might already exist in several labs.
- reissbaker 3y agoWikipedia has broader knowledge, and yet no one calls it intelligent. I'm talking about reasoning capability, and GPT-4 is well below human on complex tasks, especially multi-step tasks, which is why "autonomous agents" like AutoGPT, BabyAGI, etc are not yet very useful. For example: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09247 https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09247