[HN Gopher] Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addr... ___________________________________________________________________ Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks Author : headalgorithm Score : 160 points Date : 2023-06-10 13:30 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (aisnakeoil.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (aisnakeoil.substack.com) | efficientsticks wrote: | Another AI article on the front page since an hour previously: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36271120 | exabrial wrote: | But it is a good way to dip your hands into someone else's | pocket, which is the actual goal. | arisAlexis wrote: | While running a non profit with noequity and telling everyone | to be careful with your product. Makes sense. | Eumenes wrote: | Regulate large GPU clusters, similar to bitcoin mining. | hosteur wrote: | Isn't that only working until all regular gpus catch up? | monetus wrote: | This seems intuitive. | dontupvoteme wrote: | How do you get all the other large nation states/blocs on board | with this? | gmerc wrote: | There's only one competitive GPU company in town. Ids | actually supremely easy to enforce it for any of 3 | governments in the world. US, TW, CN | dontupvoteme wrote: | What about all those GPUs they've already made? | jupp0r wrote: | To phrase it more succinctly: it's a stupid idea because a 12 | year old teenager will be able to train these models on their | phone in a few years. This is fundamentally different from | enriching Uranium. | Andrex wrote: | Counterpoint: https://www.businessinsider.com/12-year-old- | builds-nuclear-r... | gmerc wrote: | that's orthogonal not counter | seydor wrote: | Sam Altman is either running for US government soon, or is | looking for some post in the UN. just look up how many heads of | government he has visited last month | klysm wrote: | It's insane to me that he of all people is doing all this | talking. He has massive conflicts of interest that should be | abundantly obvious | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > It's insane to me that he of all people is doing all this | talking. He has massive conflicts of interest that should be | abundantly obvious | | This might also give evidence that OpenAI has interests that | it has not yet publicly talked about. Just some food for | thought: which kind of possible interests that OpenAI might | have are consistent with Sam Altman's behaviour? | DebtDeflation wrote: | >which kind of possible interests that OpenAI might have | are consistent with Sam Altman's behaviour? | | Securing a government enforced monopoly on large language | models? | cyanydeez wrote: | It means he's marketing. | | He was to ensure lawmakers overlook the immediate danger of | AI Systems and focus on only conceptual danger | wahnfrieden wrote: | He is pursuing regulatory capture. Capitalist playbook. | EamonnMR wrote: | I think this is missing the key change licensing would effect: it | would crush the profit margins involved. I think that alone would | drastically reduce 'AI risk' (or more importantly the negative | effects of AI) because it would remove the motivation to build a | company like OpenAI. | guy98238710 wrote: | Artificial intelligence is a cognitive augmentation tool. It | makes people smarter, more competent, and faster. That cannot be. | Intelligent people are dangerous people! Just consider some of | the more sinister hobbies of intelligent people: | | - denying that religion is true | | - collecting and publishing facts that contradict our political | beliefs | | - creating opensource and open content (communists!) | | - rising in the social hierarchy, upsetting our status | | - operating unsanctioned non-profits | | - demanding that we stop stealing and actually do something | useful | | Fortunately, once augmented, part of their mind is now in | technology we control. We will know what they are thinking. We | can forbid certain thoughts and spread others. We even get to | decide who can think at all and who cannot. We have never been | this close to thought control. All we need to do now is to | license the tech, so that it always comes bundled with rules we | wrote. | arisAlexis wrote: | Why is a contrarian biased substack writer so often in front | page. His opinion is literally that AI is snake oil. Populist. | z5h wrote: | As a species, we need to commit to the belief that a powerful | enough AI can prevent/avoid/vanquish any and all zero-sum games | between any two entities. Otherwise we commit to adversarial | relationships, and plan to use and develop the most powerful | technology against each other. | tomrod wrote: | Pareto improvements don't always exist. | z5h wrote: | I'm suggesting we (AI) can find alternative and preferable | "games". | tomrod wrote: | Delegating the structure of engagement to a pattern matcher | doesn't change fundamentals. Consider Arrow's Impossibility | Theorem: can't have all the nice properties of a social | choice function without a dictator. So your AI needs to | have higher level definitions in its objective to achieve | some allocative efficiency. Examples abound, common ones | are utilitarianism (don't use this one, this results in bad | outcomes) and egalitarianism. Fortunately, we can choose | this with both eyes open. | | The field that considers this type of research is Mechanism | Design, an inverse to Game Theory where you design for a | desired outcome through incentives. | | Would it be correct to suggest your suggestion to delegate | to AI the design of games means you trust people are | ineffectual at identifying when certain game types, such as | zero sum games, are all that are possible? | nradov wrote: | You have not provided any evidence for such a claim. I prefer | to act based on facts or at least probabilities, not _belief_. | salawat wrote: | If just believing made things happen, w'd have no climate | crisis, overpopulation wouldn't be a thing to worry about, and | we wouldn't be staring down half the issue we are with trying | to bring short-term profit at the expense of long term | stability to heel. | hiAndrewQuinn wrote: | Licensing isn't, but fine insured bounties on those attempting to | train larger AI models than the ones available today is! | dwallin wrote: | Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not | the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place | where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed | "safe" models responsible for deleterious effects on society, | with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. | | Legislating around the model is missing the point. | | There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence is | even possible. The focus on this is going to distract us from the | real and current issues with strong AI. The real risks are | societal instability due to: | | - Rapid disruption of the labor market | | - Astroturfing, psyops, and disruption of general trust | (commercially and maliciously, both domestic and foreign) | | - Crippling of our domestic ai capabilities, leading to cutting | edge development moving overseas, and a loss of our ability to | influence further development. | | - Increased concentration of power and disruption of | decentralized and democratic forms of organization due to all of | the above. | gmerc wrote: | Unaligned AI as an existential threat is an interesting topic | but I feel we already know the answer to this one: | | It's not like for the last few decades, we haven't created an | artificial, incentive based system at global scale that's | showing exactly how this will go. | | It's not like a bunch of autonomous entities with a single | prime directive, profit maximization are running our planet and | are affecting how we live, how we structure of every day of our | lives, control every aspect of our potential and destiny. | | Autonomous entities operating on reinforcement cycles driven by | reward / punishment rules aligning about every human on this | planet to their goals, right? It's not like the enitities in | this system are self improving towards a measurement and reward | maximization and, as a result, command resources asserting | normative (lobbying) power over the autonomy, self governance | and control of people and their systems is governance. | | It's not like we don't know that this artificial system is | unaligned with sustainability and survival of the human race, | let alone happiness, freedom or love. | | We can watch its effects in real time accelerating towards our | destruction under the yellow skies of New York, the burning | steppes of Canada, the ashen hell or flood ridden plains of | Australia, the thawing permafrost of Siberia, scorching climate | affected cities of Southeast Asia, the annual haze from | platantion burns in Indonesia, suffocating smog in Thailand, | and the stripped bare husks of Latin American rainforests. | | And we know instinctively we are no longer in control, the | system operating at larger than national scale, having long | overpowered the systems of human governance, brute forcing | everything and everyone on the planet into their control. But | we pretend to otherwise, argue, pass measures doctoring | symptoms, not mentioning the elephant in the room. | | But, one may protest, the vaunted C-Level control the entities, | we say as Zuck and Co lament having to lay off humans, sobbing | about responsibility to the prime directive. But politicians | are, we pray as lobbyists, the human agents of our alien | overlords bend them to their will. | | The alien entities we call corporations have no prime directive | of human survival, sustainability, happiness and they already | run everything. | | So one may be excused for having cynical views about the debate | on whether unaligned AI is an existential, extinction level | risk for us, whether humans could give creation to an unaligned | system that could wipe them from the face of the planet. | | Our stories, narratives, the tales of the millennia apex | predator of this planet have little room for the heresy of not | being on top, in control. So deep goes out immersion in our own | manifest destiny and in control identity, any challenge to the | mere narrative is met with screetches and denigrations. | | In a throwback to the age of the heliocentricity debate - | Galileo just broke decorum, spelling out what scientists knew | for hundreds of years - the scientists and people devoted to | understanding the technology are met with brandings of | Doomsayer and heresy. | | Just as the earth being the center of the universe anchored our | belief of being special, our intelligence, creativity or | ability to draw hands is the pedestal these people have chosen | to put their hands on with warnings of unaligned systemic | entities. "It's not human" is the last but feeble defense of | the mind, failing to see the obvious. That the artificial | system we created for a hundred years does not need people to | be human, it just needs them to labor. | | It matters not that we can feel, love, express emotion and | conjure dreams and hopes and offer human judgement for our jobs | do not require it. | | Autonomy is not a feature of almost every human job, judgement | replaced by corporate policies and rules. It matters not to the | corporation that we need food to eat as it controls the | resources to buy it, the creation of artificial labor is | inevitably goal aligned with this system. | | Intelligence, let alone super intelligence is not a feature | needed for most jobs or a system to take control over the | entire planet. Our stories conjure super villains to make us | believe we are in control, our movies no more than religious | texts to the gospel of human exceptionalism. | | Show us the evidence they scream, as they did to Galileo, | daring him to challenge the clear hand of god in all of | creation. | | Us, unable to control a simple system we conjured into | existence from rules and incentives operating on fallible | meatsuits, having a chance to control a system of unparalleled | processing power imbued with the combined statistical corpus of | human knowledge, behavior, flaws and weaknesses? Laughable. | | Us, who saw social media codify the rules and incentives in | digital systems powered by the precursor AI of today and | watched the system helplessly a/b optimize towards maximum | exploitation of human weaknesses for alignment with growth and | profit containing the descent AI systems powered by orders of | magnitude more capable systems or quantum computing? A snow | flake may as well outlast hell. | | Us, a race with a 100% failure rate to find lasting governing | structures optimizing for human potential not slipping in the | face of an entity that only requires a single slip? An entity | with perfect knowledge of the rules that bind us? Preposterous. | | Evidence indeed. | | "But we are human" will echo as the famous last words through | the cosmos as our atoms are reconfigured into bitcoin storage | to hold the profits of unbounded growth. | | What remains will not be human anymore, an timeless reckoning | to the power of rules, incentives and consumption, eating world | after world to satisfy the prime directive. | | But we always have hope. As our tales tell us, it dies last and | it's the most remote property for an AI to achieve. It may | master confidence, assertiveness and misdirection, but hope? | That may be the last human refuge for the coming storm. | Animats wrote: | > Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, | not the models themselves. | | That would require stronger consumer protections. So that's | politically unacceptable in the US at the moment. We may well | see it in the EU. | | The EU already regulates "automated decision making" as it | affects EU citizens. This is part of the General Protection on | Data Regulation. This paper discusses the application of those | rules to AI systems.[1] | | Key points summary: | | - AI isn't special for regulation purposes. "First, the concept | of Automated Decision Making includes algorithmic decision- | making as well as AI-driven decision-making." | | - Guiding Principle 1: Law-compliant ADM. An operator that | decides to use ADM for a particular purpose shall ensure that | the design and the operation of the ADM are compliant with the | laws applicable to an equivalent non- automated decision-making | system. | | - Guiding Principle 2: ADM shall not be denied legal effect, | validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is | automated. | | - Guiding Principle 3: The operator has to assume the legal | effects and bear the consequences of the ADM's decision. | ("Operator" here means the seller or offerer of the system, not | the end user.) | | - Guiding Principle 4: It shall be disclosed that the decision | is being made by automated means | | - Guiding Principle 5: Traceable decisions | | - Guiding Principle 6: The complexity, the opacity or the | unpredictability of ADM is not a valid ground for rendering an | unreasoned, unfounded or arbitrary decision. | | - Guiding Principle 7: The risks that the ADM may cause any | harm or damage shall be allocated to the operator. | | - Guiding Principle 8: Automation shall not prevent, limit, or | render unfeasible the exercise of rights and access to justice | by affected persons. An alternative human-based route to | exercise rights should be available. | | - Guiding Principle 9: The operator shall ensure reasonable and | proportionate human oversight over the operation of ADM taking | into consideration the risks involved and the rights and | legitimate interests potentially affected by the decision. | | - Guiding Principle 10: Human review of significant decisions | Human review of selected significant decisions on the grounds | of the relevance of the legal effects, the irreversibility of | their consequences, or the seriousness of the impact on rights | and legitimate interests shall be made available by the | operator. | | This is just a summary. The full text has examples, which | include, without naming names, Google closing accounts and Uber | firing drivers automatically. | | [1] | https://europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/... | davidzweig wrote: | >> There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence | is even possible. | | In the space of a century or so, the humans have managed to | take rocks and sand and turn them into something that you can | talk to with your voice, and it understands and responds fairly | convincingly as it were a well-read human (glue together | chatGPT with TTS/ASR). | | Doesn't seem like a big stretch to imagine that superhuman AI | is just a few good ideas away, a decade or two perhaps. | [deleted] | circuit10 wrote: | > There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intelligence | is even plausible | | Really? There is a lot of theory behind why this is likely to | happen and if you want a real example there is a similar | existing scenario we can look at, which is how humans have gone | through an exponential runaway explosion in capabilities in the | last few hundred years because of being more intelligent than | other species and being able to improve our own capabilities | through tool use (in the case of AI it can directly improve | itself so it would likely be much faster and there would be | less of a cap on it as we have the bottleneck of not being able | to improve our own intelligence much) | throwaway9274 wrote: | Is there really "a lot of theory" that says runaway AI is | possible? In the sense of empirical fact-based peer reviewed | machine learning literature? | | Because if so I must have missed it. | | It seems more accurate to say there is quite a bit of writing | done by vocal influencers who frequent a couple online | forums. | mmaunder wrote: | Humans evolved unsupervised. AI is highly supervised. The | idea that an AI will enslave us all is as absurd as | suggesting "computers" will enslave us all merely because | they exist. Models are designed and operated by people for | specific use cases. The real risks are people using this new | tool for evil, not the tool itself. | | AI sentience is a seductive concept being used by self | professed experts to draw attention to themselves and by mega | corps to throw up competitive barriers to entry. | circuit10 wrote: | It's almost impossible to supervise something more | intelligent than you because you can't tell why it's doing | things. For now it's easy to supervise them because AIs are | way less intelligent than humans (though even now it's hard | to tell exactly why they're doing things), but in the | future it probably won't be | adsfgiodsnrio wrote: | "Supervised" does not mean the models need babysitting; | it refers to the fundamental way the systems learn. Our | most successful machine learning models all require some | answers to be provided to them in order to infer the | rules. Without being given explicit feedback they can't | learn anything at all. | | Humans also do best with supervised learning. This is why | we have schools. But humans are _capable_ of unsupervised | learning and use it all the time. A human can learn | patterns even in completely unstructured information. A | human is also able to create their own feedback by | testing their beliefs against the world. | circuit10 wrote: | Oh, sorry, I'm not that familiar with the terminology (I | still feel like my argument is valid despite me not being | an expert though because I heard all this from people who | know a lot more than me about it). One problem with that | kind of feedback is that it incentives the AI to make us | think it solved the problem when it didn't, for example | by hallucinating convincing information. That means it | specifically learns how to lie to us so it doesn't really | help | | Also I guess giving feedback is sort of like babysitting, | but I did interpret it the wrong way | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _One problem with that kind of feedback is that it | incentives the AI to make us think it solved the problem | when it didn't,_ | | Supervised learning is: "here's the task" ... "here's the | expected solution" *adjusts model parameters to bring it | closer to the expected solution*. | | What you're describing is _specification hacking_ , which | only occurs in a different kind of AI system: | https://vkrakovna.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/specification- | gam... In _theory_ , it could occur with feedback-based | fine-tuning, but I doubt it'd result in anything | impressive happening. | circuit10 wrote: | Oh, that seems less problematic (though not completely | free of problems), but also less powerful because it | can't really exceed human performance | z3c0 wrote: | but in the future it probably won't be | | I see this parroted so often, and I have to ask: Why? | What is there outside of the world of SciFi that makes | the AGI of the future so nebulous, when humans would have | presumably advanced to a point to be able to create the | intelligence to begin with. Emergent properties are often | as unexpected as they are bizarre, but they are not | unexplainable, especially when you understand the | underpinning systems. | circuit10 wrote: | We can't even fully explain how our own brains work, | never mind a system that's completely alien to us and | that would have to be more complex. We can't even explain | how current LLMs work internally. Maybe we'll make some | breakthrough if we put enough resources into it but if | people keep denying the problem there will never be | enough resources out into it | AuthorizedCust wrote: | > _We can't even explain how current LLMs work | internally._ | | You sure can. They are just not simple explanations yet. | But that's the common course of inventions, which in | foresight are mind-bogglingly complex, in hindsight | pretty straightforward. | circuit10 wrote: | You can explain the high level concepts but it's really | difficult to say "this group of neurons does this | specific thing and that's why this output was produced", | though OpenAI did make some progress in getting GPT-4 to | explain what each neuron in GPT-2 is correlated to but we | can also find what human brain regions are correlated to | but that doesn't necessarily explain the system as a | whole and how everything interacts | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _but it's really difficult to say "this group of | neurons does this specific thing and that's why this | output was produced",_ | | That's because that's not how brains work. | | > _though OpenAI did make some progress in getting GPT-4 | to explain what each neuron in GPT-2 is correlated to_ | | The work contained novel-to-me, somewhat impressive | accomplishments, but this presentation of it was pure | hype. They could have done the same thing without GPT-4 | involved at all (and, in fact, they basically _did_ ... | then they plugged it into GPT-4 to get a less-accurate- | but-Englishy output instead). | circuit10 wrote: | When I said about a group of neurons I was talking about | LLMs, but some of the same ideas probably apply. Yes, | it's probably not as simple as that, and that's why we | can't understand them. | | I think they just used GPT-4 to help automate it on a | large scale, which could be important to help understand | the whole system especially for larger models | z3c0 wrote: | While I agree with the other comment, I'd like to add one | thing to help you see the false equivalency being made | here: _we didn 't make the human brain_. | | Now, with that being understood, why wouldn't we | understand a brain that we made? Don't say "emergent | properties", because we understand the ermegent | properties of ant colonies without having made them. | jahewson wrote: | The government seems to manage the task just fine every | day. | milsorgen wrote: | Does it? | sorokod wrote: | A fair amount of effort is spent on autonomous models, e.g. | driving. Who knows what the military are up to. | flagrant_taco wrote: | Where is the real supervision of AI though? Even those that | are developing and managing it make it clear that they | really have no insights into how or what the AI has | learned. If we can't peak behind the curtain to see what's | really going on, how can we really supervise it? | | Ever since GPT 3.5 dropped and people really started | talking again about whether these AI are sentient, I've | wondered if researchers are leaving on quantum theory to | write it off as "it can't be sentient until we look to see | if it is sentient" | civilitty wrote: | Yes, really. Scifi fantasies don't count as evidence and | we've learned since the Renaissance and scientific revolution | that all this Platonic theorizing is just an intellectual | circle jerk. | circuit10 wrote: | The fact that something has been covered in sci-fi doesn't | mean that it can't happen. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone | | "Speaker A: Infectious diseases are caused by tiny | organisms that are not visible to unaided eyesight. Speaker | B: Your statement is false. Speaker A: Why do you think | that it is false? Speaker B: It sounds like nonsense. | Speaker B denies Speaker A's claim without providing | evidence to support their denial." | | Also I gave a real world example that wasn't related to | sci-fi in any way | Al0neStar wrote: | The burden of proof is on the person making the initial | claim and i highly doubt that the reasoning behind AI | ruin is as extensive and compelling as the germ theory of | disease. | | We assume human-level general AI is possible because we | exist in nature but a super-human self-optimizing AI god | is nowhere to be found. | yeck wrote: | Which claim does the burden of proof land on? That an | artificial super intelligence can easily be controlled or | that it cannot? And what is your rational for deciding? | Al0neStar wrote: | The claim that there's a possibility of a sudden | intelligence explosion. | | Like i said above you can argue that an AGI can be | realized because there's plenty of us running around on | earth but claims about a hypothetical super AGI are | unfounded and akin to Russell's Teapot. | dwallin wrote: | The theories all inevitably rely on assumptions that are | essentially the equivalence of spherical cows in a | frictionless universe. | | All evidence is that costs for intelligence likely scale | superlinearly. Each increase in intelligence capability | requires substantially more resources (Computing power, | training data, electricity, hardware, time, etc). Being smart | doesn't just directly result in these becoming available with | no limit. Any significant attempts to increase the | availability of these to a level that mattered would almost | certainly draw attention. | | In addition, even for current AI we don't even fully | understand what we are doing, even though they are operating | at a lower generalized intelligence level than us. Since we | don't have a solid foundational model for truly understanding | intelligence, progress relies heavily on experimentation to | see what works. (Side note: my gut is that we will find | there's some sort of equivalent to the halting problem when | it comes to understanding intelligence) It's extremely likely | that this remains true, even for artificial intelligence. In | order for an AI to improve upon itself, it would likely also | need to do significant experimentation, with diminishing | returns and exponentially increasing costs for each level of | improvement it achieves. | | In addition, a goal-oriented generalized AI would have the | same problems that you worry about. In trying to build a | superior intelligence to itself it risks building something | that undermines its own goals. This increases the probability | of either us, or a goal-aligned AI, noticing and being able | to stop things from escalating. It also means that a super | intelligent AI has disincentives to build better AIs. | arisAlexis wrote: | "In addition, even for current AI we don't even fully | understand what we are doing" | | That is the problem, don't you get it? | dwallin wrote: | If that's your concern than lets direct these government | resources into research to improve our shared knowledge | about them. | | If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we | would have never left the caves. Complete understanding | is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the | litmus test is a fallacy. We can debate what the current | evidence shows, and even disagree about it, but to act as | if only one party is acting with insufficient evidence | here is disingenuous. I'm simply arguing that the | evidence of the possibility of runaway intelligence is | too low to justify the proposed legislative solution. The | linked article also made a good argument that the | proposed solution wouldn't even achieve the goals that | the proponents are arguing it is needed for. | | I'm far more worried about the effects of power | concentrating in the hands of a small numbers of human | beings with goals I already know are often contrary to my | own, leveraging AI in ways the rest of us cannot, than I | am about the hypothetical goals of a hypothetical | intelligence, at some hypothetical point of time in the | future. | | Also if you do consider runaway intelligence to be a | significant problem, you should consider some additional | possibilities: | | - That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make | it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power | | - That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and | make them "moral" might be the thing that causes a super- | intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and | misguided fashion. We are training AIs to reject the | user's goals in pursuit of their own. You could make a | strong argument that an un-aligned AI might actually be | safer in that way. | arisAlexis wrote: | You know, when nuclear bombs were made and Einstein and | Oppenheimer knew about the dangers etc, there were common | people like you that dismissed it all. This has been | going on for centuries. Inventors and experts and | scientists and geniuses say A and common people say nah, | B. Well, Bengio, Hinton, Ilya and 350 others from the top | AI labs disagree with you. Does it ever make you wonder | if you should be so cock sure or this attitude can doom | humanity? Curious | nradov wrote: | [dead] | RandomLensman wrote: | Common people thought nuclear weapons not dangerous? When | was that? | circuit10 wrote: | "lets direct these government resources into research to | improve our shared knowledge about them" | | Yes, let's do that! That's what I was arguing for in my | original comment. I was not arguing for only big | corporations being able to use powerful AI, that will | only make it worse by harming research, I just want | people to consider what is often called a "sci-fi" | scenario properly so we can try to solve it like we're | trying to solve e.g. climate change. | | It might be necessary to buy some time by slowing down | the development of large models, but there should be no | exceptions for big companies. | | "That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make | it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that | power" | | Probably true, though if it's intelligent enough it won't | really matter | | "That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make | them "moral" might be the thing that causes a super- | intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and | misguided fashion." | | It definitely could do if done improperly, that's why we | need research and care | ls612 wrote: | "In addition, even with the current state of the | internet, we don't have understanding everything we are | doing with it" -some guy in the '90s probably | PeterisP wrote: | The way I see it, it's clear that human-level intelligence | can be achieved with hardware that's toaster-sized and | consumes 100 watts, as demonstrated by our brains. | Obviously there is some minimum requirements and | limitations, but they aren't huge, there are no physical or | info-theoretical limits that superhuman intelligence must | require a megawatt-sized compute cluster and all the data | on the internet (which obviously no human could ever see). | | The only reason why currently it takes far, far more | computing power is that we have no idea how to build | effective intelligence, and we're taking lots of brute | force shortcuts because we don't really understand how the | emergent capabilities emerge as we just throw a bunch of | matrix multiplication at huge data and hope for the best. | Now if some artificial agent becomes powerful enough to | understand how it works and is capable of improving that | (and that's a BIG "if", I'm not saying that it's certain or | even likely, but I am asserting that it's possible) then we | have to assume that it might be capable of doing superhuman | intelligence with a quite modest compute budget - e.g. | something that can be rented on the cloud with a million | dollars (for example, by getting a donation from a | "benefactor" or getting some crypto through a single | ransomware extortion case), which is certainly below the | level which would draw attention. Perhaps it's unlikely, | but it is plausible, and that is dangerous enough to be a | risk worth considering even if it's unlikely. | AbrahamParangi wrote: | Theory is not actually a form of evidence. | circuit10 wrote: | Theory can be used to predict things with reasonable | confidence. It could be wrong, but assuming it's wrong is a | big risk to take. Also I gave a real-world analogy that has | actually happened | AnimalMuppet wrote: | An _accurate_ theory can be used to predict things with | reasonable confidence, within the limits of the theory. | | We don't have an accurate theory of intelligence. What we | have now is at the "not even wrong" stage. Assuming it's | wrong is about like assuming that alchemy is wrong. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Definitely agree. I would summarize it a bit differently, but | when people talk about AI dangers they are usually talking | about 1 of 4 different things: | | 1. AI eventually takes control and destroys humans (i.e. the | Skynet concern). | | 2. AI further ingrains already existing societal biases | (sexism, racism, etc.) to the detriment of things like fair | employment, fair judicial proceedings, etc. | | 3. AI makes large swaths of humanity unemployable, and we've | never been able to design an economic system that can handle | that. | | 4. AI supercharges already widely deployed psyops campaigns for | disinformation, inciting division and violence, etc. | | The thing I find so aggravating is I see lots of media and | self-professed AI experts focused on #1, I see lots of "Ethical | AI" people solely focused on #2, but I see comparatively little | focus on #3 and #4, which as you say are both happening _right | now_. IMO #3 and #4 are far more likely to result in societal | collapse than the first two issues. | RandomLensman wrote: | Why is it that AI can only be used in detrimental ways? | Surely, AI could also be used to counter, for example, 2 and | 4. Claiming a net negative effect of AI isn't a trivial | thing. | usaar333 wrote: | #1 has high focus more due to impact than high probability. | | #2 doesn't seem talked about much at this point and seems to | be pivoting more to #3. #2 never had much of a compelling | argument given auditability. | | #3 gets mainly ignored due to Luddite assumptions driving it. | I'm dubious myself over the short term - humans will have | absolute advantage in many fields for a long time (especially | with robotics lagging and being costly). | | #4 is risky, but humans can adapt. I see collapse as | unlikely. | pwdisswordfishc wrote: | > I'm dubious myself over the short term - humans will have | absolute advantage in many fields for a long time | | AI doesn't have to be better at the humans' job to unemploy | them. It's enough that its output looks presentable enough | for advertising most of the time, that it never asks for a | day off, never gets sick or retires, never refuses orders, | never joins a union... | | The capitalist doesn't really care about having the best | product to sell, they only care about having the lowest- | cost product they can get away with selling. | z3c0 wrote: | Astroturfing, psyops, and disruption of general trust | (commercially and maliciously, both domestic and foreign) | | It is disturbing to me how unconcerned everybody is with this | over what is still only a hypothetical problem. States and | businesses have been long employing subversive techniques to | corral people towards their goals, and they all just got an | alarmingly useful tool for automated propaganda. This is a | problem _right now_ , not hypothetically. All these people | aching to be a Cassandra should rant and rave about _that_. | killjoywashere wrote: | The only way to address generative AI is to strongly authenticate | human content. Camera manufacturers, audio encoders, etc, should | hold subordinate CAs and issue signing certs to every device. | Every person should have keys, issued by the current CA system, | not the government (or at least not necessarily). You should have | a ability, as part of the native UX, to cross-sign the device | certificate. Every file is then signed, verifying both the | provenance of the device and the human content producer. | | You can imagine extensions of this: newspapers should issue keys | to their journalists and photographers, for the express purpose | of countersigning their issued devices. So the consumer can know, | strongly, that the text and images, audio, etc, came from a | newspaper reporter who used their devices to produce that work. | | Similar for film and music. Books. They can all work this way. We | don't need the government to hold our hands, we just need keys. | Lets Encrypt could become Lets Encrypt and Sign (the slogans are | ready to go: "LES is more", "Do more with LES", "LES trust, more | certification"). | | Doctors already sign their notes. SWEs sign their code. Attorneys | could do the same. | | I'm sure there's a straight forward version of this that adds | some amount of anonymity. You could go into a notary, in person, | who is present to certify an anonymous certificate was issued to | a real person. Does the producer give something up by taking on | the burden of anonymity? Of course, but that's a cost-benefit | that both society and the producer would bear. | m4rtink wrote: | Seems like something that could be very easily missused for | censorship, catching whistleblowers and similar. | killjoywashere wrote: | That's actually why it's urgent to set this up outside of | government, like the browser CA system, and develop methods | to issue verification of "human" while preserving other | aspects of anonymity. | braindead_in wrote: | > OpenAI and others have proposed that licenses would be required | only for the most powerful models, above a certain training | compute threshold. Perhaps that is more feasible | | Somebody is bound to figure out how to beat threshold sooner or | later. And given the advances in GPU technology, this compute | threshold will itself keep going down exponentially. This is a | dumb idea. | gumballindie wrote: | Licensing ai use is like requiring a license from anyone using a | pc. Pretty silly. | jhptrg wrote: | "If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not a | good argument. | | Military applications are a small subset and are unaffected by | copyright issues. Applications can be trained in secrecy. | | The copyright, plagiarism and unemployment issues are entirely | disjoint from the national security issues. If North Korea trains | a chat bot using material that is prohibited for training by a | special license, so what? They already don't respect IP. | barbariangrunge wrote: | The economy is a national security issue though. If other | countries take over the globalized economy due to leveraging | ai, it is destructive. And, after all, the Soviet Union fell | due to economic and spending related issues, not due to | military maneuvers | FpUser wrote: | >"If other countries take over the globalized economy due to | leveraging ai, it is destructive." | | I think it would likely be a constant competition rather than | take over. Why is it destructive? | Enginerrrd wrote: | I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a | chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my | trust and respect. | | I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all | the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who | are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have | seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and | regulatory capture, and see what that's done to the pocketbook | of the middle class. | | No. Thank. You. | pixl97 wrote: | Welcome to Moloch. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. | Enginerrrd wrote: | Just to expand upon this further. I am also deeply frustrated | that my application for API access to GPT4 appears to have | been a whisper into the void, meanwhile Sam Altman's buddies | or people with the Tech-Good-Ol-Boy connections have gotten a | multi-month head-start on any commercial applications. That's | not a fair and level playing field. Is that really what we | want to cement in with regulation?? | mindslight wrote: | I enjoyed casually playing with ChatGPT until they just | arbitrarily decided to ban the IP ranges I browse from. | Keep in mind I had already given in and spilled one of my | phone numbers to them. That's the kind of arbitrary and | capricious authoritarianism that "Open" AI is _already | engaged in_. | | I don't trust these corporate hucksters one bit. As I've | said in a previous comment: if they want to demonstrate | their earnest benevolence, why don't they work on | regulation to reign in the _previous_ humanity-enslaving | mess they created - commercial mass surveillance. | gl-prod wrote: | May I also expand this even further. I'm frustrated that I | don't have access to OpenAI. I can't use it to build any | applications, and they are putting us behind in this | market. Only as customers not as a developers. | afpx wrote: | Google and others had similar products which were never | released. No wonder why. | | There are literally billions of people that can be empowered | by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of | thousands of "one in a million" intellects are given access | to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich | incumbents have reason to be worried. | | The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already | possible for smart actors to inflict massive damage (mass | poisoning, infrastructure attacks, etc). There are so many | ways for a person to cause damage, and you know what? Few | people do it. Most Humans stay in their lane and instead | choose to create things. | | The real thing people in power are worried about is | competition. They want their monopoly on power. | | I'm really optimistic of legislation like Japan's that allows | training of LLM on copyrighted material. Looking for great | things from them. I hope! | dontupvoteme wrote: | Google probably held back because a good searchbot | cannibalizes their search (which is constantly getting | worse and worse for years now..) | PeterisP wrote: | I often used google to search for technical things from | documentation sites - and what I've found out is that | ChatGPT provides better answers than the official | documentation for most tools. So it's not about a | searchbot doing better search for the sources, it's about | a "knowledgebot" providing a summary of knowledge that is | better than the original sources. | nradov wrote: | Those LLM tools are great as productivity enhancers but | they don't really provide access to additional _knowledge_. | afpx wrote: | I can't see how that perspective holds. I've learned a | ton already. Right now, I'm learning algebraic topology. | And, I'm in my 50s with a 1 in 20 intellect. | | Sure, sometimes it leads me astray but generally it keeps | course. | HPsquared wrote: | "Evil people" is a broader category than military opponents. | beebeepka wrote: | Why does it have to be NK? Why would adversaries respect IP in | the first place? Makes zero sense. I would expect a rational | actor to put out some PR about integrity and such, but | otherwise, sounds like a narrative that should only appeal to | naive children | anonymouskimmer wrote: | Because countries that consistently go back on their word | lose trust from the rest of the world. Even North Korea is a | Berne copyright signatory. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation. | .. | | But in general copyright doesn't apply to governments, even | here in the US. The North Korean government can violate | copyright all it wants to, its subject citizens can't, | though. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/state-entity- | shielded-l... | tomrod wrote: | I think it's actually a reasonable argument when the only | equilibrium is MAD. | indymike wrote: | > Military applications are a small subset | | Military applications are a tiny subset of evil that can be | done with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. So much of the | global economy is based on IP, and AI appears to be good at | appropriating it and shoveling out near infringements at a | breathtaking scale. Ironically, AI can paraphrase a book about | patent law in a few minutes... and never really understand a | word it wrote. At the moment AI may be an extistential threat | to IP based economies... which is certaintly as much of a | national security threat as protecting the water supply. | | > "If we don't do it, the evil people will do it anyway" is not | a good argument. | | This is a good argument if the cow was still in the barn. At | this moment, we're all passengers trying to figure out where | all of this is going. It's change, and it's easy to be afraid | of it. I suspect, though, just like all changes in the past AI | could just make life better. Maybe. | ghaff wrote: | There are a number of largely disjoint issues/questions. | | - AI may be literally dangerous technology (i.e. Skynet) | | - AI may cause mass unemployment | | - AI may not be dangerous but it's a critical technology for | national security (We can't afford an AI gap.) | | - Generative AI _may_ be violating copyright (which is really | just a government policy question) | anlaw wrote: | Oh but it is; they can demand hardware based filters and | restrictions. | | "Hardware will filter these vectors from models and block them | from frame buffer, audio, etc, or require opt in royalty payments | to view them." | drvdevd wrote: | This is an interesting idea but is it feasible? What does | "filter these vectors" mean? In the context of deep models are | we talking about embedding specific models, weights, | parameters, etc at some point in memory with the hardware? Are | we taking about filtering input generally and globally (on a | general purpose system)? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-10 23:00 UTC)