4 ms·

what's the premise here? this thing will become iteratively better until it could potentially be capable of bad outcomes? if that's the case, how much resource

what's the premise here? this thing will become iteratively better until it could potentially be capable of bad outcomes? if that's the case, how much resources do you think should be dedicated to regulating it? more or less than currently identified existential risks? which entities should be paying for the regulatory controls? what's the proposal here? it's odd because only this one single company that is hedging it's entire existence on "oh boy what if this thing is dangerous some time in the near future" is doing silly stunts like this. why aren't they demanding nvidia start building DRM enabled thermite charges into A100s?

digging 3y ago
> what's the premise here? this thing will become iteratively better until it could potentially be capable of bad outcomes? It certainly could. More likely, if an LLM is used, it will be as a piece integrating various specialized agents. I, not an expert in AI interpretability or alignment research, can't say if what they're doing is worthwhile or not in addressing existential risk. But I also don't know if actual experts can say that either. > how much resources do you think should be dedicated to regulating it? Definitely not a lower amount than we currently are allocating. > what's the proposal here? That the smart people here stop looking for any excuse to deny and ridicule the existential threat posed by future AI. Every thread involving OpenAI (a company I personally dislike and don't trust) doesn't need to just turn into series of glib, myopic jokes.
- solarpunk 3y ago
  i wouldn't worry too much about this. if people were being serious, rather than cynically weaponizing non-expert anxieties in pursuit of regulatory capture or marketing, the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply utilizing the DRM resources already built into every computing device on the planet, to disable hardware in the event the program on it does bad things.
  - digging 3y ago
    > the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply ... A sentence beginning with this is, I can pretty much guarantee, never going to end in truth. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why remotely bricking every computer on Earth (or even just a subset known to be infected, which might reside in a hostile nation) might not be pragmatic.
    - solarpunk 3y ago
      dude... the concern is /existential/ though, right?! to summarize, i'm not advocating for this, i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place.
      - digging 3y ago
        Yes, but so is climate change, and we can't even get countries to agree to grow more slowly, let alone shut down everything. > i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place. More than one! Nuclear war, economic isolation, ground invasion. All kinds of nifty things we could do to stop dangerous AI. None of them are likely to happen when the risk is identified. To summarize, any easy solution to superhuman AI trying to kill all humans you can think of in a few seconds, someone has probably already thought about.
        solarpunk 3y ago
        what if the ai superintelligence is banking on us running datacenters non-stop in the hopes of continued return on investment. all while humans are deprived of electricity needed to operate air conditioning in a continuously heating world. and we all die off from what was initially anthtrogenic, but now ai-induced climate change? i've got a two birds; one stone solution.
        solarpunk 3y ago
        or maybe the ai superintelligence has calculated a trajectory for an asteroid on a collision course for earth guaranteed to eliminate a vast majority of life on the planet, but has a feasible disaster recovery plan for itself. and we would have a fighting chance if we could repurpose those damn nvidia GPUs currently churning through tokens to do more monte carlo experiments specific to calculating how best to deflect the immanent asteroid.
Vecr 3y ago
> why aren't they demanding nvidia start building DRM enabled thermite charges into A100s? Tweet that at Yudkowsky, he'll probably endorse it.

digging 3y ago

> what's the premise here? this thing will become iteratively better until it could potentially be capable of bad outcomes? It certainly could. More likely, if an LLM is used, it will be as a piece integrating various specialized agents. I, not an expert in AI interpretability or alignment research, can't say if what they're doing is worthwhile or not in addressing existential risk. But I also don't know if actual experts can say that either. > how much resources do you think should be dedicated to regulating it? Definitely not a lower amount than we currently are allocating. > what's the proposal here? That the smart people here stop looking for any excuse to deny and ridicule the existential threat posed by future AI. Every thread involving OpenAI (a company I personally dislike and don't trust) doesn't need to just turn into series of glib, myopic jokes.

solarpunk 3y ago
i wouldn't worry too much about this. if people were being serious, rather than cynically weaponizing non-expert anxieties in pursuit of regulatory capture or marketing, the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply utilizing the DRM resources already built into every computing device on the planet, to disable hardware in the event the program on it does bad things.
- digging 3y ago
  > the pragmatic solution to all future worries about AI alignment is simply ... A sentence beginning with this is, I can pretty much guarantee, never going to end in truth. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why remotely bricking every computer on Earth (or even just a subset known to be infected, which might reside in a hostile nation) might not be pragmatic.
  - solarpunk 3y ago
    dude... the concern is /existential/ though, right?! to summarize, i'm not advocating for this, i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place.
    - digging 3y ago
      Yes, but so is climate change, and we can't even get countries to agree to grow more slowly, let alone shut down everything. > i'm just emphasizing there's a nifty little framework already in place. More than one! Nuclear war, economic isolation, ground invasion. All kinds of nifty things we could do to stop dangerous AI. None of them are likely to happen when the risk is identified. To summarize, any easy solution to superhuman AI trying to kill all humans you can think of in a few seconds, someone has probably already thought about.
      - solarpunk 3y ago
        what if the ai superintelligence is banking on us running datacenters non-stop in the hopes of continued return on investment. all while humans are deprived of electricity needed to operate air conditioning in a continuously heating world. and we all die off from what was initially anthtrogenic, but now ai-induced climate change? i've got a two birds; one stone solution.
        solarpunk 3y ago
        or maybe the ai superintelligence has calculated a trajectory for an asteroid on a collision course for earth guaranteed to eliminate a vast majority of life on the planet, but has a feasible disaster recovery plan for itself. and we would have a fighting chance if we could repurpose those damn nvidia GPUs currently churning through tokens to do more monte carlo experiments specific to calculating how best to deflect the immanent asteroid.

Vecr 3y ago

> why aren't they demanding nvidia start building DRM enabled thermite charges into A100s? Tweet that at Yudkowsky, he'll probably endorse it.