7 ms·

It's because is Ilya. This deal was cooked way back, though, perhaps even before the coup. Now, can they make a product that makes at least $1B + 1 dollar in

It's because is Ilya. This deal was cooked way back, though, perhaps even before the coup. Now, can they make a product that makes at least $1B + 1 dollar in revenue? Doubt it, I honestly don't see a market for "AI safety/security".

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
I wonder if "Super Intelligence" means anything .. just LLMs, or maybe they are pursuing new architectures and shooting for AGI ?
- lijok 2y ago
  They're shooting straight for AGI
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    AGI would definitely be a major historical milestone for humanity ... ... however, I'm on the camp that believes it's not going to be hyper-profitable for only one (or a few) single commercial entities. AGI will not be a product like the iPhone where one company can "own" it and milk it for as long as they want. AGI feels more like "the internet", which will definitely create massive wealth overall but somehow distributed among millions of actors. We've seen it with LLMs, they've been revolutionary and yet, one year after a major release, free to use "commodity" LLMs are already in the market. The future will not be Skynet controlling everything, it will be uncountable temu-tier AIs embedded into everything around you. Even @sama stated recently they're working on "intelligence so cheap that measuring its use becomes irrelevant". /opinion
- fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
  It's certainly in their best interest not to tell us that it's just going to be another pile of LLMs that they've trained not to say or do anything that isn't business friendly.
  - layer8 2y ago
    I believe they mean security as in “won’t enslave humanity”, not “won’t offend anyone”.
- spyder 2y ago
  shooting for an AGI that hopefully won't shoot us :)
- aithrowaway1987 2y ago
  In 2022 Ilya Sutskever claimed there wasn't a distinction: > It may look—on the surface—that we are just learning statistical correlations in text. But it turns out that to ‘just learn’ the statistical correlations in text, to compress them really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. This text is actually a projection of the world. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT9sP4mAWEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT9sP4mAWEg - sadly the only transcripts I could find were on AI grifter websites that shouldn't be linked to) This is transparently false - newer LLMs appear to be great at arithmetic, but they still fail basic counting tests. Computers can memorize a bunch of symbolic times tables without the slightest bit of quantitative reasoning. Transformer networks are dramatically dumber than lizards, and multimodal LLMs based on transformers are not capable of understanding what numbers are. (And if Claude/GPT/Llama aren't capable of understanding the concept of "three," it is hard to believe they are capable of understanding anything.) Sutskever is not actually as stupid as that quote suggests, and I am assuming he has since changed his mind.... but maybe not. For a long time I thought OpenAI was pathologically dishonest and didn't consider that in many cases they aren't "lying," they blinded by arrogance and high on their own marketing.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Which basic counting tests do they still fail? Recent examples I've seen fall well within the range of innumeracy that people routinely display. I feel like a lot of people are stuck in the mindset of 10 years ago, when transformers weren't even invented yet and state-of-the-art models couldn't identify a bird, no matter how much capabilities advance.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      > Recent examples I've seen fall well within the range of innumeracy that people routinely display. But the company name specifically says "superintelligence" The company isn't named "as smart as the average redditor, Inc"
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
jointpdf 2y ago
Are state-level actors the main market for AI security? Using the definition from the article: > AI safety, which refers to preventing AI from causing harm, is a hot topic amid fears that rogue AI could act against the interests of humanity or even cause human extinction. If the purpose of a state is to ensure its continued existence, then they should be able to make >=$1 in profit.
rpozarickij 2y ago
> "AI security" It looks like the aim of SSI is building safe AI, not just working on safety/security of AI. Both the article and their website [1] state this. [1] https://ssi.inc https://ssi.inc
michaelt 2y ago
> I honestly don't see a market for "AI security". I suspect there's a big corporate market for LLMs with very predictable behaviour in terms of what the LLM knows from its training data, vs what it knows from RAG or its context window. If you're making a chatbot for Hertz Car Hire, you want it to answer based on Hertz policy documents, even if the training data contained policy documents for Avis and Enterprise and Budget and Thrifty car hire. Avoiding incorrect answers and hallucinations (when appropriate) is a type of AI safety.

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

I wonder if "Super Intelligence" means anything .. just LLMs, or maybe they are pursuing new architectures and shooting for AGI ?

lijok 2y ago
They're shooting straight for AGI
- moralestapia 2y ago
  AGI would definitely be a major historical milestone for humanity ... ... however, I'm on the camp that believes it's not going to be hyper-profitable for only one (or a few) single commercial entities. AGI will not be a product like the iPhone where one company can "own" it and milk it for as long as they want. AGI feels more like "the internet", which will definitely create massive wealth overall but somehow distributed among millions of actors. We've seen it with LLMs, they've been revolutionary and yet, one year after a major release, free to use "commodity" LLMs are already in the market. The future will not be Skynet controlling everything, it will be uncountable temu-tier AIs embedded into everything around you. Even @sama stated recently they're working on "intelligence so cheap that measuring its use becomes irrelevant". /opinion
fkyoureadthedoc 2y ago
It's certainly in their best interest not to tell us that it's just going to be another pile of LLMs that they've trained not to say or do anything that isn't business friendly.
- layer8 2y ago
  I believe they mean security as in “won’t enslave humanity”, not “won’t offend anyone”.
spyder 2y ago
shooting for an AGI that hopefully won't shoot us :)
aithrowaway1987 2y ago
In 2022 Ilya Sutskever claimed there wasn't a distinction: > It may look—on the surface—that we are just learning statistical correlations in text. But it turns out that to ‘just learn’ the statistical correlations in text, to compress them really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. This text is actually a projection of the world. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT9sP4mAWEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT9sP4mAWEg - sadly the only transcripts I could find were on AI grifter websites that shouldn't be linked to) This is transparently false - newer LLMs appear to be great at arithmetic, but they still fail basic counting tests. Computers can memorize a bunch of symbolic times tables without the slightest bit of quantitative reasoning. Transformer networks are dramatically dumber than lizards, and multimodal LLMs based on transformers are not capable of understanding what numbers are. (And if Claude/GPT/Llama aren't capable of understanding the concept of "three," it is hard to believe they are capable of understanding anything.) Sutskever is not actually as stupid as that quote suggests, and I am assuming he has since changed his mind.... but maybe not. For a long time I thought OpenAI was pathologically dishonest and didn't consider that in many cases they aren't "lying," they blinded by arrogance and high on their own marketing.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Which basic counting tests do they still fail? Recent examples I've seen fall well within the range of innumeracy that people routinely display. I feel like a lot of people are stuck in the mindset of 10 years ago, when transformers weren't even invented yet and state-of-the-art models couldn't identify a bird, no matter how much capabilities advance.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > Recent examples I've seen fall well within the range of innumeracy that people routinely display. But the company name specifically says "superintelligence" The company isn't named "as smart as the average redditor, Inc"
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

jointpdf 2y ago

Are state-level actors the main market for AI security? Using the definition from the article: > AI safety, which refers to preventing AI from causing harm, is a hot topic amid fears that rogue AI could act against the interests of humanity or even cause human extinction. If the purpose of a state is to ensure its continued existence, then they should be able to make >=$1 in profit.

rpozarickij 2y ago

> "AI security" It looks like the aim of SSI is building safe AI, not just working on safety/security of AI. Both the article and their website [1] state this. [1] https://ssi.inc https://ssi.inc

michaelt 2y ago

> I honestly don't see a market for "AI security". I suspect there's a big corporate market for LLMs with very predictable behaviour in terms of what the LLM knows from its training data, vs what it knows from RAG or its context window. If you're making a chatbot for Hertz Car Hire, you want it to answer based on Hertz policy documents, even if the training data contained policy documents for Avis and Enterprise and Budget and Thrifty car hire. Avoiding incorrect answers and hallucinations (when appropriate) is a type of AI safety.