3 ms·

> but having a nonprofit investigate solutions to prevent them is a worthwhile pursuit, This is forgetting that power is an even greater temptation than money.

> but having a nonprofit investigate solutions to prevent them is a worthwhile pursuit, This is forgetting that power is an even greater temptation than money. The non-profits will all come up with solutions that have them serving as gatekeepers, to keep the unwashed masses from accessing something that that is too dangerous for the common person. I would rather have for-profit corporations control it, rather that non-profits. Ideally, Inwould like it to be open sourced so that the common person could control and align AI with their own goals.

kibwen 3y ago
> I would rather have for-profit corporations control it, rather that non-profits. The problem isn't the profit model, the problem is the ability to unilaterally exercise power, which is just as much of a risk with the way that most for-profit companies are structured as top-down dictatorships. There's no reason to trust for-profit companies to do anything other than attempt to maximize profit, even if that destroys everything around them in the process.
fmajid 3y ago
There is no profit in AI safety, just as cars did not have seat belts until Ralph Nader effectively forced them to by publishing Unsafe at any Speed. For-profit corporations have zero interest in controlling something that is not profitable, unless in conjunction with captured regulation it helps them keep challengers out. If it's open-sourced, it doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they are economically sustainable.
- dmix 3y ago
  > There is no profit in AI safety AI safety is barely even a tangible thing to measure like that. It's mostly just fears and a lose set of ideas for a hypothetical future AGI that we're not even close to. So far OpenAI's "controls" it's just increasingly expanding the list of no-no things topics and some philosophy work around iRobot type rules. They also slow walked the release of GPT because of fears of misinformation, spam, and deepfakey stuff that never really materialized. Most proposals for safety is just "slowing development" of mostly LLMs, calls for vague gov regulation, or hand wringing over commercialization. The commercialization thing is most controversial because OpenAI claimed to be open and non-profit. But even with that the correlation between less-commercialization == more safety is not clear, other than prioritizing what OpenAI's team spends their time doing. Which again is hard to tangibly measure what that realistically means for 'safety' in the near term.
- pawelmurias 3y ago
  > There is no profit in AI safety An AI that does what it is told too seems both way more profitable and safer.
  - justaj 3y ago
    I'm guessing the issues will lie in cases where it appears to be doing what it's told, but it would only pretend to be doing so (with no obvious way to tell)

kibwen 3y ago

> I would rather have for-profit corporations control it, rather that non-profits. The problem isn't the profit model, the problem is the ability to unilaterally exercise power, which is just as much of a risk with the way that most for-profit companies are structured as top-down dictatorships. There's no reason to trust for-profit companies to do anything other than attempt to maximize profit, even if that destroys everything around them in the process.

fmajid 3y ago

There is no profit in AI safety, just as cars did not have seat belts until Ralph Nader effectively forced them to by publishing Unsafe at any Speed. For-profit corporations have zero interest in controlling something that is not profitable, unless in conjunction with captured regulation it helps them keep challengers out. If it's open-sourced, it doesn't matter who wrote it as long as they are economically sustainable.

dmix 3y ago
> There is no profit in AI safety AI safety is barely even a tangible thing to measure like that. It's mostly just fears and a lose set of ideas for a hypothetical future AGI that we're not even close to. So far OpenAI's "controls" it's just increasingly expanding the list of no-no things topics and some philosophy work around iRobot type rules. They also slow walked the release of GPT because of fears of misinformation, spam, and deepfakey stuff that never really materialized. Most proposals for safety is just "slowing development" of mostly LLMs, calls for vague gov regulation, or hand wringing over commercialization. The commercialization thing is most controversial because OpenAI claimed to be open and non-profit. But even with that the correlation between less-commercialization == more safety is not clear, other than prioritizing what OpenAI's team spends their time doing. Which again is hard to tangibly measure what that realistically means for 'safety' in the near term.
pawelmurias 3y ago
> There is no profit in AI safety An AI that does what it is told too seems both way more profitable and safer.
- justaj 3y ago
  I'm guessing the issues will lie in cases where it appears to be doing what it's told, but it would only pretend to be doing so (with no obvious way to tell)