8 ms·

The same Hinton who was certain that radiology was solved? The same Sutskever who led OpenAI when they released a neutered GPT-2 because the full model was too

The same Hinton who was certain that radiology was solved? The same Sutskever who led OpenAI when they released a neutered GPT-2 because the full model was too dangerous? The problem with the AI safety argument is that it can be boiled down to: 1) Assume that we build an all powerful god machine 2) The all powerful god machine has the ability to exterminate humanity All of their work revolves around different ways that 2) might occur. But what I, and many other people, take issue with is whether 1) is even possible, and if it is, if we’re even remotely close to building it. No one ever explains how 1) will be achieved beyond vague handwaving, because no one knows how to build a god machine.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago
(1) will happen if the following is true: A. Intelligence is substrate independent I.e. there’s nothing mythically special about biological neurons that allow them to “be intelligent.” B. Intelligence is economically valuable C. We don’t destroy ourselves first e.g. via nukes or asteroid We know for a fact that you can produce human-level intelligence that runs on very, very little power, and you can train that intelligence up to human-level in the course of 10-50 years of navigating the real world. Why do we know that? Because evolution did it already. Now is there something so remarkable about the tissue we happen to have in our brain that means it is literally impossible to replicate this success? I can’t seem to find what it is. Is there some reason to believe that the human brain is the absolute upper limit of what type of intelligence is possible in this universe? I can’t seem to find why that would be the case. Obviously everyone who needs to agree on the commercial incentive already does agree on the commercial incentive (see: bottomless VC and soon govt funding), so that’s a moot point. So explain how if these things are true: it’s possible, there’s immense incentives, and we have time enough to do it, that we don’t end up accomplishing it?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ethanbond 3y ago

(1) will happen if the following is true: A. Intelligence is substrate independent I.e. there’s nothing mythically special about biological neurons that allow them to “be intelligent.” B. Intelligence is economically valuable C. We don’t destroy ourselves first e.g. via nukes or asteroid We know for a fact that you can produce human-level intelligence that runs on very, very little power, and you can train that intelligence up to human-level in the course of 10-50 years of navigating the real world. Why do we know that? Because evolution did it already. Now is there something so remarkable about the tissue we happen to have in our brain that means it is literally impossible to replicate this success? I can’t seem to find what it is. Is there some reason to believe that the human brain is the absolute upper limit of what type of intelligence is possible in this universe? I can’t seem to find why that would be the case. Obviously everyone who needs to agree on the commercial incentive already does agree on the commercial incentive (see: bottomless VC and soon govt funding), so that’s a moot point. So explain how if these things are true: it’s possible, there’s immense incentives, and we have time enough to do it, that we don’t end up accomplishing it?