resident423

7 ms·

1.
by resident423 3mo ago
You mean for AI consciousness or existential risk? I think Anthropic downplay the existential risk (they might talk about it now and then, but they still build frontier models) but are overly confident about AI being conscious, and I think
2.
by resident423 3mo ago
I agree with this, but I don't think Anthropic would, they appear to be much more convinced than what I think would be reasonable.
3.
by resident423 3mo ago
It seems like a simple solution but if Anthropic was actually to dedicate all its resources this way wouldn't the investors just demand a new CEO? I think Anthropic believe these risks, but I also think they've spent so much time
4.
by resident423 3mo ago
My smoke detector has gone off three times now, where is the fire?
5.
by resident423 3mo ago
I suppose you end up hating it either way, if you're a better developer than it you don't like it because it sucks, and if it's a better developer than you then you just feel obsolete
6.
by resident423 3mo ago
You mean that self improving AI is very far away? I'm not sure how much I believe that now it's solving Erdos problems?
7.
by resident423 4mo ago
> but can't come up with revolutionary theories that were never in the training set. Can you elaborate? I don't think the solution to the unit distance problem was in the training set, but I'm guessing you mean there'
8.
by resident423 4mo ago
I agree with all of these points, my view is just that open source doesn't really do much to prevent it. I also think it adds the additional danger of making dangerous capabilities widely available to anyone, like the ability to design
9.
by resident423 4mo ago
I can understand this for hacking tools, but I'm not really sure how we fix the security issues on the CBRN side? We can't patch the human body like we can with software, so if the model has strong biological capabilities and is r
10.
by resident423 4mo ago
I would say I agree with Anthropic on open source for the reasons stated above like cyber crime, CBRN etc, but I'm interested to hear the other side of the argument. What would be the argument for open source over closed source?
11.
by resident423 4mo ago
At the moment is the significant part, how long do we expect this to last now that AI is capable of generating novel ideas like solutions to Erdos conjectures?
12.
by resident423 4mo ago
>CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DC has conducted industry-sponsored research involving creatine supplementation and received creatine donations for scientific studies and travel support and speaking honoraria for presentations involving creatine
13.
by resident423 4mo ago
I don't think that's true, from what I've seen the people on here are pretty consistently anti surveillance
14.
by resident423 4mo ago
All of these discussions seem to assume there's a limit at human level intelligence beyond which AI can progress no further. What stops the AI companies taking their human level model and training it even more until it's superhuma
15.
by resident423 4mo ago
Pdoom would be the most important for me, everything else depends on us being able to control the AI. But beyond that there's still problems like concentration of power and surveillance, permanent loss of jobs, cyber and bio security.
16.
by resident423 4mo ago
There's isn't even a solution for how to control highly capable systems at all, everyone wants to decide what to do with the AI before they've even solved the problem of controlling it. It's like how everybody imagines t
17.
by resident423 5mo ago
130000 so far https://jobloss.ai/
18.
by resident423 5mo ago
I feel like these articles are just a reasurance for people who don't want to accept that AI will automate their jobs. It becomes easier to focus on a lesser group of AI users and feel superior than to confront the reality of things.
19.
by resident423 5mo ago
I don't really like the idea of an app telling me how to manage my friendships, my view is that people can handle their relationships without intervention. I'm not sure what problem it is trying to solve.
20.
by resident423 5mo ago
No, but I'm interested to know what it is?
21.
by resident423 5mo ago
I haven't used stable diffusion enough to have a strong opinion on it. But my thinking is LLMs have only recently started contributing novel solutions to problems, so maybe there is some threshold above which there's less sloppy r
22.
by resident423 5mo ago
Remember when people thought solving Erdos problems required intelligence? Is there anything an LLM could ever do that would cound as intelligence? Surely the trend has to break at some point, if so what would be the thing that crosses the
23.
by resident423 5mo ago
Solving open math problems is strong evidence of intelligence so there's not really any need for rationalization? I don't understand why intelligence would require intent or motive? Isn't intent just the behaviour of making a
24.
by resident423 5mo ago
There's probably a limit to how intelligent something can be with no long term memory, but solving Erdos problems in 80 minutes is clearly not above it, and I think the true limit is probably much higher than that.
25.
by resident423 5mo ago
What your describing sounds more like the model is lacking awareness than lacking intelligence? Why does it need to know it solved the problem to be intelligent?
26.
by resident423 5mo ago
I wonder if the rationalizations people come up with for why this isn't real intelligence will be as creative as ChatGPTs solution.
27.
by resident423 5mo ago
Can both not be true?
28.
by resident423 5mo ago
Why hopefully?
29.
by resident423 5mo ago
There are also large organizations at Meta focussed on the optimal distribution of scam ads to the elderly. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
30.
by resident423 5mo ago
Meta employees are not typically known for their deep concerns about privacy.

More ›