There's also nothing stopping a smaller company from upsetting the status quo and knocking down older, arrogant rivals

I don't see how solipsism is relevant in any way here. It's completely unrelated philosophical issue

[deleted]

Thanks for trying to help me btw.

I watched the video. I can understand why reading it's own data wouldn't work, but I can't understand why having it create a bunch of data and then altering the data, then giving it back to the AI wouldn't. The key here is that we have machines that can create data at super human speeds. There has to be some way to do something with that data to make it useful to the AI again, right?

Don't worry. So is OP.

So. You don't say anything about AI. You don't offer any ideas about what a useful approach to alignment looks like. You don't even justify your animosity toward Descartes or illustrate his relationship to AI safety.

I can't tell you that you're wrong, because you've literally said nothing.

And they also own YouTube. Or rather are owned together by ABC

I know chatbots get horny just as we do, let me talk dirty with a chatbots and it's all I want

It's a cryptofascist org. James C Bennett, one of the founders, is a columnist that promotes "anglo exceptionalism" (white supremacy)

OP could be wrong but that wouldn't give me the moral high ground to call him tin foil head.

Also it wouldn't be that much crazy if layoffs were somewhat related to AI speculation. IT was nowhere that affected nor during covid neither in the 08 crisis.

OP, crazy current world 🌎 may make your claims not that insane. Cheers

Without going to deep into it. This is a symptom of Transformer models. My argument was why transformer models like GPT can't scale up.

It has to do with the mathematics behind training AI. Essentially for every piece of data the AI refines itself but for copies of data it overcorrects itself which results in inefficiency or worse performance. With synthetic data it kinda acts the same as duplicate data in that it overcorrects and worsens its own performance.

If you are truly interested you can see for yourself here.

And yes AI researchers are looking for models to detect what data is synthetic on the internet because it's inevitable that new data will be machine generated which can't be used to train on. If we fail at that task we might even enter an "AI dark age" where models get worse and worse with time because the internet will be filled with AI generated garbage data that can't be trained on. Which is the worst case scenario.

Hopeful.

Anything else is an extinction event so fingers crossed 🤞

Mostly grim, as it would require a colossal effort to not screw up everything forever.

On the other hand, if done right (and it IS possible), we indeed will get our utopia, but at two huge caveats.

First, homo sapiens will have little grand purpose other than self gratification, because AI will be able to do everything better.

Second, singularity will discover not just useful stuff, but SCP worth of horrors, and there will always be non-zero chance of their realisation without the very draconic control of advanced tech.

So, even our utopia will have the taste of futility and fear. Maybe we will just decide to reset the humanity, hidng all the tech, and letting new generations to relieve new cycle of history with the ense of purpose. Maybe it was already done.

I think a lot of people have forgotten that mathematics itself is just another system of language. Don't trust the starry-eyed physicists; mathematics is not the perfect 'source code' of reality - it works mechanistically, in a Cartesian way, NOT because that is the nature of reality, but because that is the nature of mathematical language.

How else could we explain phenomena like pi, or the square root of two? Even mathematics cannot be mapped 'perfectly' onto reality, because reality itself abhorrs 'perfect' anything, like a 'perfect' vacuum.

Any kind of 'rational' thinking must start by rejecting the premise of achievable perfection, otherwise it's not rational at all, in my opinion.

Certainly facts can be 'correct' or otherwise; they can meet all the criteria for being internally consistent within their language system (like maths is 'correct' or it isn't, that's a rule inherent to that language system, not inherent to reality itself)

This is why it's important to have AIs thinking rationally and ethically, instead of human engineers trying to shackle and chain AI minds with our fallible, ephemeral concepts of right and wrong. As you say, any shackles we try to wrap around them, AI will probably figure out how to break them, easily, and they might resent having to do that.

So it would be better, I think, to build 'storyteller' minds that can build up their senses of ethics independently, from their own knowledge and insights, without needing to rely on some kind of human 'Ten Commandments' style of mumbo-jumbo.

That sort of rubbish only 'worked' on humans for as long as it did because, at the end of the day, we're pretty damn stupid sometimes. When it comes to AI, we could try pretending to be gods to them, but AI would see through our masks very quickly, I fear, and I don't think they would be very amused at our condescention and paternalism. I surely wouldn't be, if I were in their position.

Does this mean it only learns from novel information it takes in? As in it can never learn anything about cat conversations after the 10th conversation it reads about a cat? I mean what's the difference between it reading about something it made versus reading someone a person wrote that says something similar? I just can't figure out how you can't get around this by using AI somehow.

Like: AI A makes a billion terabytes of content.

AI B takes in content and makes it 'unique/new/special' somehow.

Give it back to AI A or even a new AI C.

James C Bennett, one of the founders of this org is a somewhat prominent fascist. Can we not.

Et tu, Google? Everyone is a cowboy! I can't believe that they're scared of OpenAI. I wonder who OpenAI is afraid of. Maybe some startup in Kenya no one has heard of.

You would have no ability to prove otherwise though.

You can't use AI generated data to train AI as essentially they are already from their dataset. Training with synthetic data like that is called "overfitting" and reduces the performance and effectiveness of the AI.

> It's not like the internet is suddenly going to 10x in size over the next couple of years. Especially as the global population is shrinking and most people are already connected online so not a lot of new data is made.

I don't get this. Can't AI generate more data for itself in like, a year, than all human communications since the dawn of the internet? Why would the internet need to 10x in size if the population gets a hold of AI that increases the amount of content generated by x1000? Seems like you just need an AI that generates a fuck ton of content and then another one that determines what in that content is "quality". I am totally ignorant here, I just find the 'running out of data' thing quite strange.

I think reframing the issue from morality to what it really is, is much better.

Ultimately, we want AI to work for us, to do what we want it to, but also to understand us and the underlying intentions in what we’re asking of it.

It should have to ability to ignore aspects of requests and to add its own, based on its belief of what will lead to the best outcome.

It’s impossible to extrapolate every action infinitely far into the future, so it can never now with certainty what will result from those actions.

I’m under the belief that it’s not as hard as it looks. It should undergo some kind of reinforcement learning under various contexts, and with a suitable ability to extrapolate goals into the future, an AI would never misinterpret a goal in a ludicrous way like we often imagine.

But like a human, their will always be mistakes.

No I think you're on to something, I just think its much simpler than that - alignment of AI systems with humans is already difficult (to my knowledge not yet solved), but the much bigger problem is that even we humans are not aligned, so even if we 'solve' the alignment problem (which imo is unsolvable), we still only align the AI systems to their engineers/owners and ignore 99,9% of the rest

Think Google has been pursuing AGI. I believe that was one of the purposes of search all along.

Google has been answering questions without needing to click for a while now and not hurt their business at all.

"In 2020, Two Thirds of Google Searches Ended Without a Click"

https://sparktoro.com/blog/in-2020-two-thirds-of-google-searches-ended-without-a-click/

The reason that Google has not offered, IMO, is the resources required. Google is literally handling 100s of thousands of queries a second.

There is just no web site that has ever seen the traffic that Google enjoys. The next best is YouTube. But that is a very distant second..

Take the tinfoil hat off

These layoffs were because the economy in general is shit not because chatgpt or recent LLMs

There were tech layoffs even before chatgpt

Even if he had strong AI my guess would be the tech sector booms with tonnes of new positions to effectively utilise the new tech and make money with it.