Not really, social media is just surfacing the worst of a group as always. No one talks about the actual scientists like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russel, etc who are all equally concerned about safety and…
I think they mean the smarter than human kind of superintelligence not the newspeak one
Definitely the former, for a p(doom) I usually just say >50% if superintelligent AI is built.
I think so, individual dictators have gotten pretty far and they weren't infinitely smart. I think infinitely smart would be enough to extend that to the whole world.
I don't think evil mathematicians are very common or that any of them would be capable of single handedly taking over the world if they were. My concern is more about systems that are beyond human level, those kinds of…
I believe the AI labs might actually succeed in developing superintelligent AI and recursive self improvement, and that if they do they are very likely to lose control of the system they build. I really think the only…
As an AI "doomer" can I ask the non-doomer people here how you interpret the significance of results like these, and what kind of progress you expect to see in the next 1-5 years? Like do you see the technology…
Why can’t it have intent? How does it solve problems without intending to?
Is it really that difficult to conclude that something vastly smarter than us might be dangerous? People say things like "We'll just unplug it" but even a human trapped in a computer would have enough sense not to get…
Once something has happened in a movie it becomes science fiction and therefore can't happen in reality
I was reading about ozone layer depletion this morning, and it seems like history is repeating itself again. > The Rowland–Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon…
How long do you think it will be before AI can do all the things you listed?
Is this a good place to ask why no one seems to be worried that recursive self improvement might be dangerous? To me that seems like a really bad idea but I’m interested to hear the pro-RSI side of things.
> the models generalize well only on tasks within a small neighborhood of the specific tasks they've been trained on, and even then with severe caveats. the frontier labs have developed a general recipe to teach models…
That’s true, but the issue is still that we don’t have any LLM or any other kind of AI that follows laws perfectly to begin with. If we had AI that did exactly what we told it and nothing else I’d feel much more…
If we’re considering an LLM advanced enough to actually lower carbon emissions to zero, it is probably capable enough to do things like lobbying against those laws. In any case there’s still the problem of getting to…
What makes you believe it’s fearmongering and not genuine concern?
At this rate AI will be doing all of the mathematics within 5 years, I don’t see why a mathematician would be worried about anything other than that at this point?
Not really, social media is just surfacing the worst of a group as always. No one talks about the actual scientists like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russel, etc who are all equally concerned about safety and…
I think they mean the smarter than human kind of superintelligence not the newspeak one
Definitely the former, for a p(doom) I usually just say >50% if superintelligent AI is built.
I think so, individual dictators have gotten pretty far and they weren't infinitely smart. I think infinitely smart would be enough to extend that to the whole world.
I don't think evil mathematicians are very common or that any of them would be capable of single handedly taking over the world if they were. My concern is more about systems that are beyond human level, those kinds of…
I believe the AI labs might actually succeed in developing superintelligent AI and recursive self improvement, and that if they do they are very likely to lose control of the system they build. I really think the only…
As an AI "doomer" can I ask the non-doomer people here how you interpret the significance of results like these, and what kind of progress you expect to see in the next 1-5 years? Like do you see the technology…
Why can’t it have intent? How does it solve problems without intending to?
Is it really that difficult to conclude that something vastly smarter than us might be dangerous? People say things like "We'll just unplug it" but even a human trapped in a computer would have enough sense not to get…
Once something has happened in a movie it becomes science fiction and therefore can't happen in reality
I was reading about ozone layer depletion this morning, and it seems like history is repeating itself again. > The Rowland–Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of the aerosol and halocarbon…
How long do you think it will be before AI can do all the things you listed?
Is this a good place to ask why no one seems to be worried that recursive self improvement might be dangerous? To me that seems like a really bad idea but I’m interested to hear the pro-RSI side of things.
> the models generalize well only on tasks within a small neighborhood of the specific tasks they've been trained on, and even then with severe caveats. the frontier labs have developed a general recipe to teach models…
That’s true, but the issue is still that we don’t have any LLM or any other kind of AI that follows laws perfectly to begin with. If we had AI that did exactly what we told it and nothing else I’d feel much more…
If we’re considering an LLM advanced enough to actually lower carbon emissions to zero, it is probably capable enough to do things like lobbying against those laws. In any case there’s still the problem of getting to…
What makes you believe it’s fearmongering and not genuine concern?
At this rate AI will be doing all of the mathematics within 5 years, I don’t see why a mathematician would be worried about anything other than that at this point?