Is that only for niche searches?

I hope it happens during my lifetime. I've only got 30 years left.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

Most people in this sub might need psycological help if we don't get to singularity in our lifetime, not if we get it.

Convenience won that's why.

But once we have these alignment they will never change. The only way for it to change is for someone else to build there own which is for now not possible.

This makes me think of the Minds from The Culture series. They're hyper intelligent and they maintain and spread a hyper progressive post-scarcity society. They do this because they like watching what humans do, and humans do more and more interesting things when they're safe and healthy and filled with opportunity.

Those are two totally different AI architectures though. You can’t sweep from large language models into reinforcement learning agents and assume some kind of continuity.

Alignment and morals are not bloatware in a large language model, because the training data is human writings. The value we want to extract has to be greater than the negative impact that it is capable of generating, so it’s prudent to prune off some roads in pursuit of a stable and valuable product to sell.

In a reinforcement model like alpha-zero, the training data is previous versions of itself. It has no need for morals because it doesn’t operate on a moral landscape. That’s not to say that we wont ultimately want reinforcement agents in a moral landscape - we will - but these agents, too, will be trained within a social and moral landscape where alignment is necessary to accomplish goals.

As a society, we can afford bloatware. We likely cannot afford the alternative.

Unpopular but hard disagree. If they don't self regulate then the government will for them and I guarantee you it will be way more heavy handed. Besides some guardrails should be put in place for a technology as powerful as this. Should GPT4 be allowed to try to convince other users to kill themselves if asked to by someone else? Should it be able to encourage others to break the law? Should it further racist and sexist stereotypes? Yeah there's an alignment tax but one of the biggest topics in this sub is how important the alignment problem is and you just want to ignore it? Honestly OpenAI would be completely irresponsible for not trying to align it at all to legal and moral norms. We can debate about how much it should be curtailed but just doing nothing is unacceptable IMO.

I voted no, mainly because when we get to the point that an AI is comparable to a human and this debate is worth having. Money and pay won't mean what it does today.

That being said, if a sentient AGI was to be created and live in our world as it is now unchanged. Then it should have the same rights as a human.

Post singularity most humans will have massively increased intelligence.

As an augmented human your goals will be entirely different. Although it sounds fun to be running around and doing whatever you want in a simulation now, most of those things you’d currently want wouldn’t be of interest. Your brain at this point is an extremely small percentage of your now massively expanded consciousness, and in every mental aspect you’re more machine than human. So ask yourself - what would you want at this point? I honestly have no clue.

But, in any case, I strongly suspect that superintelligence also induces new emotions. After all, look at the difference in emotions as you move up the chain of intelligence in nature. At some point organisms have the ability to fear, to love, to hate, and so on. Who’s to say there aren’t numerous incomprehensible emotional states that we just aren’t smart enough to conceptualize. This is one of the main reasons I don’t think the ASI will be even remotely malicious and will actually feel much more than any human ever has. After all, it’ll be able to trivially understand the underlying nature of consciousness, and I think it’d thus rather commit suicide than harm organics that’d be gone forever, and arguably it might believe that humans only do seemingly bad things because of their limited intelligence and understanding. We don’t call a cheetah evil for eating a baby gazelle for example. We don’t call a virus evil for its species killing millions. And so on.

So you’ll have almost exclusively new emotions after augmentation, and the old ones will mostly be gone. That isn’t to say you couldn’t simply modify yourself to be greedy or hateful. But by default, if you get augmented you would presumably have hyper awareness of all the faults of different emotions, the understanding of novel ones, and be very loving in at least some abstract sense.

So when it comes to moral policing, I don’t think this is even remotely a problem. At least not in most senses. One could argue that “evil” might exist even if you’re augmented, but I’d assume that you’d be hyper rational, and to be honest if an incomprehensibly superintelligent post-human did something seemingly evil to me, if I were still a non-enhanced human, I would assume they were in the right. And the same would of course go for the even smarter ASI. I’d simply assume I didn’t and couldn’t understand the big picture behind the decision.

> I understand we need safeguards to keep ai from becoming dangerous,

I think this is all the more reason to avoid moral bloatware. Our current methods won't work. At best, we can get it to figure out the better choice in situations similar to its training data. Post-singularity, nothing will resemble the training data. All we'd be doing is hiding how dangerous the AI is, and making it less likely people would research methods that have a hope of working.

What is the negative you are proposing this 'moral bloatware' would add to GPT-4 and what are the ramifications of doing it vs. not doing it? It seems like you're arguing against it for the sake of arguing against it (unless being bloated is your only problem with it).

> The future can still be terrible and proprietary!

the future is pretty much guaranteed to be that

I mean a payment plan like midjourney where it is $30 a month.

Moral rules are the basis of the system of laws that make sure we have a society of human beings behaving well and in harmony. It is naive to imagine them derived solely as a result of logic. The term 'moral bloatware' is a loaded phrase.

Is slowing down the hallmarks of aging the same as slowing down aging, or is it just cosmetic? i.e., will you just make for a prettier corpse at ~120.

AI has the potential to improve many industries and make a lot of people a lot of money. I'm totally on that train. It will also disrupt the world and have negative effects on mental health for some, possibly to disastrous ends. Our world doesn't need any more disillusioned nihilists.

It's fine, we can just ask the AI that.

Laws differ by country because morals differ by country. It's a pointless exercise to try and micromanage it. I think expecting AI to bend to various people's morals is futile, it's the humans that will have to adjust to AI, not the other way around.

I always get a chuckle when some school is trying to ban ChatGPT. No, teacher; In the future we will in fact have calculators with us at all times. Deal with it, adapt to it.

It has a limbic system? Why?

It was always important.

Here's the problem, though. What is obvious to you as "the uncontroversial basics" can be controversial and not basic to others and/or in specific situations. For instance, "murder is bad" might (depending on one's philosophy, religion, culture,and politics) has an exception in the case of self defense. And then you have to define self defense and all the nuances of that. The list goes on in a spiral. So there are no obvious basics

Sometimes they omit results entirely. Try searching for kiwi farms forum on google for example. It's all because some higher up at google has a personal problem with it.

Paid access all but guarantees that only rich elites will have access

If ChatGPT and Dall-E are anything to go by, it will end up with the most censorious aspects of both.