RandomLensman

4 ms·

1.
by RandomLensman 5d 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
2.
by RandomLensman 5d 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
3.
by RandomLensman 5d ago
Not sure we need to experience all possible issues to mandate certain things. We don't do that in other areas either, no?
4.
by RandomLensman 5d ago
Big if.
5.
by RandomLensman 5d 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?
6.
by RandomLensman 5d 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
7.
by RandomLensman 5d 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 (
8.
by RandomLensman 6d ago
Related to not tested: Who has a large bioweapons arsenal? As per below, my point was more about that bans do happen.
9.
by RandomLensman 6d 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
10.
by RandomLensman 6d 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
11.
by RandomLensman 6d ago
Where did I say people shouldn't work on their societies?
12.
by RandomLensman 6d ago
There were always crises, I think.
13.
by RandomLensman 6d ago
RL leading to weird and unexpected things isn't new or restricted to current AI systems.
14.
by RandomLensman 9d 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
15.
by RandomLensman 9d ago
Not sure comparative advantage needs past decisions to happen - could just be randomly distributed resources, for example.
16.
by RandomLensman 14d 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
17.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
Why do you think it wasn't airgapped? Was internet access deemed necessary?
18.
by RandomLensman 14d 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?
19.
by RandomLensman 14d ago
Would an LLM have gone through a purposefully installed airgap here?
20.
by RandomLensman 14d 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?
21.
by RandomLensman 14d 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?
22.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
There are also high real estate values in places with low homeownership and largely pay-as-you-go retirement systems.
23.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
Not sure forcing land use to its highest efficiency will get nice results. Where is money stored (other than physical) that has its capacity blocked?
24.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
The subprime market changed quite a bit in size and how much was securitized in the run up to 2007, so not sure a prediction in 2000 for a 2003 event would have been easily transferred to what happened later. Would really come down to what
25.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
Were there some criminal convictions?
26.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
I am fully aware of the GFC, but not sure what "take down" should mean there in relation to Bear. Not everyone who spoke about house price risk was ridiculed, btw.
27.
by RandomLensman 16d ago
What do you mean by "take down Bear Stearns"? Btw., projections are just that - projections and I am not sure Acemoglu proved things mathematical (as in a mathematical proof) but rather within the context of a model/assumptio
28.
by RandomLensman 19d ago
I think the language unhelpful and potentially making it difficult to understand what actually happens in the RL state as reading it imparts a human lens - need to get the machine view on it. Bacteria do all sorts of fascinating things. And
29.
by RandomLensman 19d ago
But we don't know - just saying it could isn't enough. Bacteria are quite complex, btw.
30.
by RandomLensman 19d ago
So we know that implementation doesn't matter as long as it is somehow making predictions (and predictions also on different things)? Most living things are prediction engines in a way, why compare to the brain then to start with and n

More ›