3 ms·
You’re thinking short term, applying safety to todays LLMs. No one is claiming todays tech poses and existential threat. Others are looking at the trajectory a
by PUSH_AX 3y ago
You’re thinking short term, applying safety to todays LLMs. No one is claiming todays tech poses and existential threat.
Others are looking at the trajectory and thinking about the future, where safety does start to become important.
- zmgsabst 3y agoAll large scale human atrocities required a centralized government imposing on the public a technocratic agenda. “AI safety” advocates are recreating that problem, now with AI spice. How about we don’t create actual problems (technocrats imposing disasters on the public) because we’re fighting the scourge of hypothetical pixies?
- PUSH_AX 3y ago> Some large scale human atrocities FTFY
- 123yawaworht456 3y ago>No one is claiming todays tech poses and existential threat. really now, friend?
- __loam 3y agoIn terms of trajectory, I'm not really convinced we can do much better than we are now. Moore's law is ending in the next decade as we hit fundamental physical limitations in how many transistors we can pack on a chip. The growth in computational power is going to slow down considerably at a time when ai companies are struggling to get more gpu compute to train new models and run inference. OpenAI themselves supposedly stopped sign ups because they're running out of computational resources, to the point that it's impacting research. I don't see us getting much better than GPT-4 on Von Neumann machines without expelling ludicrous amounts of capital or a see change in how we fundamentally do computation. It's hard to get around the fact that LLMs are already extremely expensive to run.