9 ms·

> 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 anythi

by 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

> 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.