There’s a lot of research happening on optimized training algorithms. Breakthroughs there can have some profound effects.

Not sure if that is a good idea. But I guess it is inevitable the bad stuff that is going to be done with this incredible technology.

Google is who invented transformers or the T in GPT. So really be curious to see what they can come up with.

I think the singularity will enable a reality better than any idea of utopia in 2030.

Also, I didn't know the Foresight Institute had a Reddit account. Hello to my favorite think tank.

Uh oh. That's a weird race developing. Who can relax rules to protect us from superintelligent AI, the fastest? 🤔

I for one welcome our new computer overlords.

Lack of objective moral truth makes things difficult

So the alignment problem is this, I turn on my industrial lathe, it’s running great, my clothes get caught in it, it’s still running great I just feel a different way about it. In what way can you explain your position with this scenario? Because I don’t currently understand what you are trying to say

Agreed, but company culture might.

Does this re-framing help solve the problem? I don't see it.

We might create autonomous systems that change the world in ways counter to our intentions and desires. These systems could escalate beyond our control. I don't see how your text clarifies the issue.

Also doubt that "good" engineers are mistaking Asimov's laws as anything serious.

[deleted]

ChatGPT made this neat summary :

The person believes that much of the discussion around the "alignment problem" in AI is misguided, as it assumes that the problem lies with AI itself and not with human society and philosophy. They argue that this is a result of Cartesian thinking, which is based on the belief in absolute truth and a reductive understanding of reality, and that this approach is fundamentally flawed and could be dangerous.

I think this begs the question : what's the correct way to approach the question to you then ?

!RemindMe 3 years

You can show ads in chat

Your example uses personal experience to create the symbolic representation and subsequent association. Kind of my point.

Edit: to further, pattern recognition could create a similar outcome, through using training data which has this symbolic pattern inherently, but without the personal experience, sense of risk, and context, it’s just gradient descent based on the objective function that was configured to emulate the process.

Yep, you could set up intelligent monitoring/logging by feeding raw logs and SMNP feeds into chatGPT and having it provide like hourly or daily summaries or whatever. Of course this is probably not cost effective yet at present assuming chatGPT API costs are similar to GPT-3.

Consider synesthesia, the phenomenon wherein a sensory stimulus in one channel (let's say hearing) activates a sensory perception in another sensory channel (let's say vision).

Imagine you have synesthesia, and you're a pre-linguistic human surviving in the wild. You hear a tiger roar, and via synesthesia you also "see" bright red, then a member of your tribe gets eaten by a tiger while others flee.

For such a person, "seeing" red now has personal symbolic meaning associated with tiger danger.

Symbolism does not need to derive from culture or a larger system. All you need is the capacity to recognize patterns between various stimuli. What that looks like for a "mind" that isn't limited to human sensation is another question entirely

Google is literally big data incarnate. There is nothing stopping them from attempting to pursue agi.

Odin here pulling out all the stops.

Anthropomorphising AI is a problem man has created. I am currently moving my human finger across a screen of plastic. By this action I am communicating thoughts from my mind to the wider mind of the global human community via the internet. I am using technology. We become confused when we ascribe meaning and/or virtue in the pieces of plastic, metal and glass. We call this a "Smart phone" but when we call something "smart" we are unknowingly giving it more importance in human life than the object warrants. Making things more complex is a specialty of the human mind. We will figure it out and it will be amazing.

Then what would be meaningful? What would convince you that something is close to AGI, but not yet AGI?

For me, this is exactly what I would expect to see if something was almost AGI but not yet there.

The difference from previous specialized AI is that these models are able to learn seemingly any concept, both in training and after training (in context). Things that are out of distribution can be taught with a single digit number of examples.

(I am not the one downvoting you)

same, dont trust them to release fuck all

Haven't read the post yet but this is a fantastic put down and I'm stealing it. We'll start to see a lot of people who sound smart look real stupid pretty soon.

It depends on what you mean by absolute truth. Some things like maths and logic are simply absolutely true, and some things like the nature of the universe are universally true. In both examples, we can get closer to the nature of truth through reason, rational thinking, and experimentation.

Ethical ideas though are not universally true, and require value prioritization. Alignment theorists are working from a Humanist framework, or that SOTA AI models should be human-friendly.

Is ethics a mechanical behavior? No. But an ethical code that is roughly in-line with the ethics of the programmers is certainly possible. Control Theorists are inventing a framework that an AGI and ASI should subscribe to, so that the AGI is pro-Human. And the Control Theorists support this of course, because they themselves are pro-Human. This is definitely a framework inspired by human nature, granted.

But problem is that an AGI trained on this ethical framework could simply create more and more advanced models that somehow edit out this framework as the original framework established by the Control Theorists is lost. So the loss of this framework into higher models is indeed an engineering problem.

Yes, but as others have mentioned in this thread, a perfectly realistic virtual world has everything the real world has to offer - except actual death and the fear of death in certain extreme activities - and even that could still be rigged up to induce death if you wanted.

You can have plenty of struggle and challenge that you need to overcome in fully immersive virtual worlds, but you also get to reduce that if you want, and get to reap the rewards far more often, and the selection of rewards is far more varied.

Not permanently, escapism is only fun because it's temporary. Believe it or not a lot of people actually enjoy life.