foo3a9c4

5 ms·

1.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. > Premise 3 is where the problem is, of course. I don't believe premise 3 is a problem exactly, but I do believe that it is a non-trivial challenge to determine whether or not it is true. > We
2.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
(this discussion is quite nuanced so I apologize in advance for any uncharitable interpretations that I may make.) > I'm not really trying to rebut Michael's argument -- I think it's true, to an extent, some of the time. B
3.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> There are far far more dollars available to people that are on the "AI Safety" bandwagon than to those pushing back against it. > The idea that the Upton Sinclair effect is the source of pushback against AI Safety zealotry
4.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> Neural networks are not new I agree. The McCullough-Pitts paper was published in 1943. > they're just mathematical systems. What do you mean by "mathematical system"? AFAIK the GPT4 model is literally a computer prog
5.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
Thanks for engaging in a discussion about AIXR. IMO it's important to figure out if we are actually about to kill ourselves or whether some people are just getting worked up over nothing. > We should also deeply worry about space a
6.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> It’s definitely not the case. LLMs of any sort do not in any sense reason or understand anything. This seems like a claim about the way that the LLM neural net algorithm works. But AFAIK no one has a good understanding of how the LLM
7.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
My understanding is that (P3) of the original argument ( https://aiadventures.net/summaries/agi-ruin-list-of-lethalit... ) uses "goals" as in (II). But earlier you said this: > 1. States things like "Fi
8.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
(I don't currently have the energy to engage with each argument, so I'm just responding to the first.) > (P1) Current SOTA AI is good at understanding implicit context, and improved versions will likely be better at understandi
9.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> 1. I am saying that the claim "it is easy to find goals that are extinction-level bad" with regards to the AI tech that we can see today is incorrect. LLMs can understand context, and seem to generally understand that when yo
10.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> 1. States things like "Finding goals that are extinction-level bad and relatively useful appears to be easy: for example, advanced AI with the sole objective ‘increase company.com revenue’ might be highly valuable to company.com f
11.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> I don't think anyone seriously believes this. It's very very clear to all humans that have ever played a game of any kind that they can be defeated in unexpected ways. I don't even think that anyone believes the claim &q
12.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> The first links are spiffy little metaphors, but apply just as much at "God could smite all of humanity, even if you don't understand how". They're not making any argument, just assumptions. In particular, they acci
13.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> in observable reality asking ChatGPT to maximize paperclip production does not in fact lead to ChatGPT attempting to turn all life on Earth into paperclips (nor does asking the open source LLMs result in that behavior out of the box ei
14.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> For info: I don't believe (1), I do believe (2) although not that strongly Thanks for clarifying. Do you believe there is a better than 20% chance that humans will develop AGI in the next 30 years? > I simply don't see an
15.
by foo3a9c4 3y ago
> With AI, there still seems to be a lot of hand-waving between where we are now and "AGI". > I am more than prepared to admit that I may not be seeing (for various reasons) the evidence that this is near/possible - but