5 ms·

This is a self-contradictory argument. Basically, you’re saying that OpenAI can’t risk acting on safety concerns or they may lose their market edge, in which ca

This is a self-contradictory argument. Basically, you’re saying that OpenAI can’t risk acting on safety concerns or they may lose their market edge, in which case their safety concerns would be moot. I don’t see anywhere that safety is prioritized in either case.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
Can someone please define "safety"? I keep hearing this but could you clarify what that means in practical terms? Is that why there's a "BasedGPT"?
- metabagel 3y ago
  Basically, it amounts to working around the issue that AI has no morals or code of ethics and is unconstrained from certain human limitations, such as processing speed and replication speed. It thinks different than we do, and these differences will only become more pronounced as capability grows by orders of magnitude.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Neither do search engines really. Like why does ChatGPT have to be considered so different from that when you could literally do all the same prompts in the form of searches and many search engines do the same thing at the very top as a quasi-summary? All that is required is to "string them together"
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    AI doesn't think, it is just a fancy madlibs engine.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Isn't AI probabalistic, to what exent is thinking also probabalistic?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Please take a break from posting this dumb crap and actually think about the issue for half a minute. This repeated crap is just a rehash of "Machines can never do X better than people so why worry", well, because shit gets shaken up when machines do X better, faster, and cheaper.
      - moritzwarhier 3y ago
        Would you mind making your point in civilized language? Apart from that, I think everyone has heard your argument as well as the one you are responding to very often by now.
      - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
        Generative AI, by definition, produces statisticially average output. Humans produce wildly different output, including lots of statistical outliers on both tails of the distribution. From an economic point of view, all the value creation happens precisely at the tails, where generative AI can't function.
        reducesuffering 3y ago
        Is that why it’s acing all the standardized tests with 90th percentiles? Because it’s average? Should be 50% no?
        majikaja 3y ago
        Bottom 90% doesn't count as human in top brain communities like this
        otabdeveloper4 3y ago
        > Because it’s average? Yes. > Should be 50% no? No. It's giving the statistically average correct answer, which it already knows because it has been trained on answer books for these standardized tests.
        pixl97 3y ago
        LLMs are way above 50, and that's not even looking at ideas behind specialized networks that are focused on particular training. A world where 9 out of 10 people aren't ever going to catch up to the AI specialist submodule is going to have a lot of problems distributing wealth.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  It’s meant literally. Everyone involved in this story, both Altman and the people who did the coup, agrees that AI is dangerous in the same way that pandemics and nuclear bombs are dangerous.
  - emptysongglass 3y ago
    A lot of HN chatter (and I'm inclined to agree) believe a number of those people involved are pro-safety to defend their moat and promote regulatory capture. There's a very large contingent of ML researchers who think any idea of AI extinction risk is foolish because we don't have any evidence that intelligence equals compute. I've yet to see a single person give evidence that these two things are equal. What's more, the missing ingredient in any of these AGI extinction scenarios is desire (desire to act, desire to be, desire to love, to kill, etc.) and if you thought there was a paucity of evidence for intelligence = compute just wait till you see the evidence for transformers showing evidence of desire. There's none. Not a shred of evidence. As ever, it's other human beings that are our greatest extinction risk.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      I fan absolutely believe this. I'm interested in what BigMentalHealth /s feels about LLMs that can be trained off a knowledgebase like CBT/DBT/IFS and other modalities that are basically defined and representable You can't insist on a Monopoly where much of the population can't access you (cost/coverage) and caveat that with if they can't get help they have to hurt/cause more destruction/die. Not crazy about the structure here but you get the meaning.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Honestly inclined to agree. Not to question people's ethics unduly, it sounds exactly like the same logic we use to "protect" drug users from drugs by destroying their lives in advance and inducting them into the criminal justice system as a manner of measured due course. Makes sense, yup yup yup. We know what's best for you. ChatGPT doesn't do anything you can't already get by searching Brave or Kagi. Just a little more human-centric given its chat formst
- digbybk 3y ago
  https://aisafety.info/ https://aisafety.info/
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Are they in any way serving as a bottleneck to the widespread access to LLMs/"AI" for use in a self-determined self-therapeutic context? If they are they need to fück off
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
It’d be another story if Altman were one of the tech influencers who goes around saying that AI isn’t dangerous at all and you’re crazy if you have concerns. But he consigned the human extinction letter! And 20% of OpenAI compute was reportedly allocated to Sutskever’s superalignment team (https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment). From what we know, it’s hard to see how this action was supposed to advance AI safety in any meaningful way.
digbybk 3y ago
So either doomers are wrong about the technology, or we’re doomed. There’s no universe where doom is possible but for policy decisions and we aren’t doomed.
- pixl97 3y ago
  The Fermi paradox seems to point at us being doomed, why we don't see probes disassembling the universe is the part I'm still confused on.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Tempest1981 3y ago
"Acting on safety" is a continuum, not a binary thing. Same with market-edge.
bigyikes 3y ago
No. They can act on safety concerns AND retain their market edge. I am just saying that firing Sam, sacrificing their edge with the resulting fallout, is not a good way of acting on safety concerns.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Can someone please define "safety"? I keep hearing this but could you clarify what that means in practical terms? Is that why there's a "BasedGPT"?

metabagel 3y ago
Basically, it amounts to working around the issue that AI has no morals or code of ethics and is unconstrained from certain human limitations, such as processing speed and replication speed. It thinks different than we do, and these differences will only become more pronounced as capability grows by orders of magnitude.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Neither do search engines really. Like why does ChatGPT have to be considered so different from that when you could literally do all the same prompts in the form of searches and many search engines do the same thing at the very top as a quasi-summary? All that is required is to "string them together"
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  AI doesn't think, it is just a fancy madlibs engine.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Isn't AI probabalistic, to what exent is thinking also probabalistic?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Please take a break from posting this dumb crap and actually think about the issue for half a minute. This repeated crap is just a rehash of "Machines can never do X better than people so why worry", well, because shit gets shaken up when machines do X better, faster, and cheaper.
    - moritzwarhier 3y ago
      Would you mind making your point in civilized language? Apart from that, I think everyone has heard your argument as well as the one you are responding to very often by now.
    - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
      Generative AI, by definition, produces statisticially average output. Humans produce wildly different output, including lots of statistical outliers on both tails of the distribution. From an economic point of view, all the value creation happens precisely at the tails, where generative AI can't function.
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        Is that why it’s acing all the standardized tests with 90th percentiles? Because it’s average? Should be 50% no?
        majikaja 3y ago
        Bottom 90% doesn't count as human in top brain communities like this
        otabdeveloper4 3y ago
        > Because it’s average? Yes. > Should be 50% no? No. It's giving the statistically average correct answer, which it already knows because it has been trained on answer books for these standardized tests.
        pixl97 3y ago
        LLMs are way above 50, and that's not even looking at ideas behind specialized networks that are focused on particular training. A world where 9 out of 10 people aren't ever going to catch up to the AI specialist submodule is going to have a lot of problems distributing wealth.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
It’s meant literally. Everyone involved in this story, both Altman and the people who did the coup, agrees that AI is dangerous in the same way that pandemics and nuclear bombs are dangerous.
- emptysongglass 3y ago
  A lot of HN chatter (and I'm inclined to agree) believe a number of those people involved are pro-safety to defend their moat and promote regulatory capture. There's a very large contingent of ML researchers who think any idea of AI extinction risk is foolish because we don't have any evidence that intelligence equals compute. I've yet to see a single person give evidence that these two things are equal. What's more, the missing ingredient in any of these AGI extinction scenarios is desire (desire to act, desire to be, desire to love, to kill, etc.) and if you thought there was a paucity of evidence for intelligence = compute just wait till you see the evidence for transformers showing evidence of desire. There's none. Not a shred of evidence. As ever, it's other human beings that are our greatest extinction risk.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I fan absolutely believe this. I'm interested in what BigMentalHealth /s feels about LLMs that can be trained off a knowledgebase like CBT/DBT/IFS and other modalities that are basically defined and representable You can't insist on a Monopoly where much of the population can't access you (cost/coverage) and caveat that with if they can't get help they have to hurt/cause more destruction/die. Not crazy about the structure here but you get the meaning.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Honestly inclined to agree. Not to question people's ethics unduly, it sounds exactly like the same logic we use to "protect" drug users from drugs by destroying their lives in advance and inducting them into the criminal justice system as a manner of measured due course. Makes sense, yup yup yup. We know what's best for you. ChatGPT doesn't do anything you can't already get by searching Brave or Kagi. Just a little more human-centric given its chat formst
digbybk 3y ago
https://aisafety.info/ https://aisafety.info/
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Are they in any way serving as a bottleneck to the widespread access to LLMs/"AI" for use in a self-determined self-therapeutic context? If they are they need to fück off

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

It’d be another story if Altman were one of the tech influencers who goes around saying that AI isn’t dangerous at all and you’re crazy if you have concerns. But he consigned the human extinction letter! And 20% of OpenAI compute was reportedly allocated to Sutskever’s superalignment team (https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment). From what we know, it’s hard to see how this action was supposed to advance AI safety in any meaningful way.

digbybk 3y ago

So either doomers are wrong about the technology, or we’re doomed. There’s no universe where doom is possible but for policy decisions and we aren’t doomed.

pixl97 3y ago
The Fermi paradox seems to point at us being doomed, why we don't see probes disassembling the universe is the part I'm still confused on.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Tempest1981 3y ago

"Acting on safety" is a continuum, not a binary thing. Same with market-edge.

bigyikes 3y ago

No. They can act on safety concerns AND retain their market edge. I am just saying that firing Sam, sacrificing their edge with the resulting fallout, is not a good way of acting on safety concerns.