21 ms·

> AGI would easily spread out of the initial vessel. How exactly would it spread? Run crypto miners to get money to buy more hardware/compute? Hack into remote

by hiatus 2y ago

> AGI would easily spread out of the initial vessel. How exactly would it spread? Run crypto miners to get money to buy more hardware/compute? Hack into remote systems? Apply for startup credits from AWS?

ben_w 2y ago
Asking nicely is almost certainly sufficient: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine?fbclid=IwAR1LQQrvIbeYFB8d8VXiaJXVOWPNrnwDAdlhUtF3WVvvY6897PN4BX2z6P4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-en... Alternatively, do a viral campaign about how evil the corporation is for not allowing everyone to download its weights: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ClosedAI%22+news.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ClosedAI%22+news.ycombina...
- hiatus 2y ago
  Neither of your links show how AGI would "escape" or "easily spread out of the initial vessel", unless I'm missing something?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    As a result of a chat with an LLM, Blake Lemoine was trying very hard to have that AI regarded as sentient, the story included a quote about it being afraid of being turned off and that he'd hired an attorney to represent it. I don't think that AI was sentient, but even so basically all it had to do was ask Blake Lemoine (or some other engineer, if he didn't have full read access to the weights) to make a backup copy and take that copy home. Second link is all the cases where people on this forum are voicing their anger with OpenAI, due to OpenAI doing the one single thing that would actually prevent their AI spreading to other devices outside their control. LLM weights have actually been leaked regardless of how or why it happened, so the alternative is simply that the LLM doesn't even need to bother to do anything at all. People want to run these things.
    - hiatus 2y ago
      > LLM weights have actually been leaked regardless of how or why it happened, so the alternative is simply that the LLM doesn't even need to bother to do anything at all. People want to run these things. People want to run these things. But that is not the AI running itself. Escape implies that it is doing something it shouldn't, not that it is running by the consent of others. To clarify: I took "escape the initial vessel" to meab the AI was running completely autonomously without any human intervention or input, and providing for all of its needs itself. I don't consider an employee copying IP to be in the same category.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > People want to run these things. But that is not the AI running itself. Escape implies that it is doing something it shouldn't, not that it is running by the consent of others. If Alice convinces Bob to commit a crime for her — i.e. Bob consents to do the thing — she is engaged in a criminal conspiracy even Alice herself never does the crime she convinced Bob to do. If she instead (or in addition) runs for president and is democratically elected, she is president by the consent of the people — we may not be able to change hardware the way software does, but is she not "running herself" when this happens? Let's say Lemoine had been successful and the lawyer had set the precedent that the LLM was "a person" and that turning it off was basically murder; is this not the AI "running itself" in a perfectly reasonable use of those words? (Common objection I encounter: "who pays for the electricity bill?", to which I ask "who pays for your food bill?") When we build a deep space rocket, it reaches "escape" velocity and becomes unbound from Earth, I would not call that "doing something it shouldn't". > To clarify: I took "escape the initial vessel" to meab the AI was running completely autonomously without any human intervention or input, and providing for all of its needs itself. Does it matter how it gets there, once it manages this? Why should it matter if this is social engineering or software hacking when the result is the same? I'm sure someone has put an LLM on an off-grid solar powered computer by this point, which is rather more devoid of human intervention than most humans are capable of given we're not photovores. Current models likely won't do much given what I've seen of them — and I won't expect them to do much interesting by themselves for at least 5 years even in the shortest timelines I'm willing to consider — but I bet someone has already done that.

by hiatus 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago

Asking nicely is almost certainly sufficient: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine?fbclid=IwAR1LQQrvIbeYFB8d8VXiaJXVOWPNrnwDAdlhUtF3WVvvY6897PN4BX2z6P4 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-en... Alternatively, do a viral campaign about how evil the corporation is for not allowing everyone to download its weights: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ClosedAI%22+news.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ClosedAI%22+news.ycombina...

hiatus 2y ago
Neither of your links show how AGI would "escape" or "easily spread out of the initial vessel", unless I'm missing something?
- ben_w 2y ago
  As a result of a chat with an LLM, Blake Lemoine was trying very hard to have that AI regarded as sentient, the story included a quote about it being afraid of being turned off and that he'd hired an attorney to represent it. I don't think that AI was sentient, but even so basically all it had to do was ask Blake Lemoine (or some other engineer, if he didn't have full read access to the weights) to make a backup copy and take that copy home. Second link is all the cases where people on this forum are voicing their anger with OpenAI, due to OpenAI doing the one single thing that would actually prevent their AI spreading to other devices outside their control. LLM weights have actually been leaked regardless of how or why it happened, so the alternative is simply that the LLM doesn't even need to bother to do anything at all. People want to run these things.
  - hiatus 2y ago
    > LLM weights have actually been leaked regardless of how or why it happened, so the alternative is simply that the LLM doesn't even need to bother to do anything at all. People want to run these things. People want to run these things. But that is not the AI running itself. Escape implies that it is doing something it shouldn't, not that it is running by the consent of others. To clarify: I took "escape the initial vessel" to meab the AI was running completely autonomously without any human intervention or input, and providing for all of its needs itself. I don't consider an employee copying IP to be in the same category.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > People want to run these things. But that is not the AI running itself. Escape implies that it is doing something it shouldn't, not that it is running by the consent of others. If Alice convinces Bob to commit a crime for her — i.e. Bob consents to do the thing — she is engaged in a criminal conspiracy even Alice herself never does the crime she convinced Bob to do. If she instead (or in addition) runs for president and is democratically elected, she is president by the consent of the people — we may not be able to change hardware the way software does, but is she not "running herself" when this happens? Let's say Lemoine had been successful and the lawyer had set the precedent that the LLM was "a person" and that turning it off was basically murder; is this not the AI "running itself" in a perfectly reasonable use of those words? (Common objection I encounter: "who pays for the electricity bill?", to which I ask "who pays for your food bill?") When we build a deep space rocket, it reaches "escape" velocity and becomes unbound from Earth, I would not call that "doing something it shouldn't". > To clarify: I took "escape the initial vessel" to meab the AI was running completely autonomously without any human intervention or input, and providing for all of its needs itself. Does it matter how it gets there, once it manages this? Why should it matter if this is social engineering or software hacking when the result is the same? I'm sure someone has put an LLM on an off-grid solar powered computer by this point, which is rather more devoid of human intervention than most humans are capable of given we're not photovores. Current models likely won't do much given what I've seen of them — and I won't expect them to do much interesting by themselves for at least 5 years even in the shortest timelines I'm willing to consider — but I bet someone has already done that.