RandomLensman

4 ms·

1.
by RandomLensman 9d ago
Not sure that is enough for forecasting as the function to be estimated could change over time in random ways.
2.
by RandomLensman 9d ago
Could sit in the box and interact if a model of certain capabilities is needed/tested. We do physical security for other things, too. Not saying everything needs that type of isolation.
3.
by RandomLensman 9d ago
Wouldn't this mean better sandboxes are needed for some things, for example (might include very strong airgaps even)? Breaking out of something isolated electromagnetically, optically, and acustically is not easy.
4.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Why would the limit of T1 devices matter when there are ones that already can do hotter? Thermodynamics make things harder to remove heat but not sure how they forbid it (you need the hot side to be hotter than outside to pump heat). Might
5.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Is 52C a physical limit?
6.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Why would 41C be the limit for the hot side? How does it work now in hotter places?
7.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Why do we need modern weapons for defense at all then? Horses, bows & arrows plus will not enough?
8.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Early data processing machines were used in the Holocaust, for example. Or cipher devices played important roles in WWII.
9.
by RandomLensman 12d ago
Not sure it needs to be about publications and data analysis technology as such to regulate AI development, for example - could be about processes, procedures, people, etc., no?
10.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
Not just on prediction but in parts also based on just not wanting certain risks. We can and do deem some things inherently risky, up to the point of banning them even. Why wasn't it airgapped, for example? How was the action not allow
11.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
Yes, my point was more that I don't know whether parsing those outputs as a human is a useful thing to do or not (even though it is in human language of sorts). What machines mean or want elecit might be different from a human interpr
12.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
Not sure we need to experience all possible issues to mandate certain things. We don't do that in other areas either, no?
13.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
Big if.
14.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
What was the inner state there? How would something not being allowed expressed internally? Maybe such language is one way to elicit certain behavior but not a statement of what was permissible?
15.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
Does that work with RL? Simpler RL systems already have done weird or unexpected things (even simple optimizations are prone to home in on errors or incorrect inputs to create poor results)? Could be easier to limit certain things, have pro
16.
by RandomLensman 13d ago
RL things doing weird and unexpected things isn't new - much simpler things than current AI already show that. That said, we have a lot of experience working with (potentially) unaligned machines and things of various degrees of risk (
17.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
Related to not tested: Who has a large bioweapons arsenal? As per below, my point was more about that bans do happen.
18.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
For starters, they are banned by the bioweapons convention from the 1970s (180+ parties). Edit: I think back then the rather unpredictable nature and the little added value in deterrence etc. led people to the conclusions that arsenals of t
19.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
Why is the analogue necessarily the regulation and control of nuclear weapons (e.g., SALT) and not, for example, that of bioweapons? Some very different paths are available. On both I would note that the private sector has only a limited ro
20.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
Where did I say people shouldn't work on their societies?
21.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
There were always crises, I think.
22.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
RL leading to weird and unexpected things isn't new or restricted to current AI systems.
23.
by RandomLensman 17d ago
> Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. Is the idea here that no field needs experiments
24.
by RandomLensman 17d ago
Not sure comparative advantage needs past decisions to happen - could just be randomly distributed resources, for example.
25.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
Yes, it might have required that, but then I don't think we know if some simpler airgap would have been sufficient. Looking at the strange behaviour even much simpler systems have shown when going for objectives, not sure it is easy to
26.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
Why do you think it wasn't airgapped? Was internet access deemed necessary?
27.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
That person then gets the land, infrastructure, etc. without needing any permissions etc.? The person will never be asked about the source of funds?
28.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
Would an LLM have gone through a purposefully installed airgap here?
29.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
I am not sure if we can interpret the language output like they were human. What inner state were the models in? What inner state were the text to illicit?
30.
by RandomLensman 22d ago
Why would an agent sound the alarm? Would that be in their objective function? Not sure if "cheating" is the right word rather than trying to fulfill the objective(s) (benchmark number) as much as possible?

More ›