Bruh I just wanna have an AI dungeon master and generate porn lmao. I think there’s a middle ground between allowing that and removing all precautions.

I bet my minidisc recorder plus my collection of colorful minidiscs on that there will be a bright future of humanity-saving technology but greedy capitalism will fuck it all up.

Technology is inherently controlled by entities that don't have average citizens best interest at heart.

So, mostly grim, unless some serious reform / revolution occurs that pries technology away from said entities.

Your lathe is an invention, not an emergent property of the universe. You need to understand the language and logic system that led to its invention, in order to use it safely and correctly. Your lathe is a part of 'story' basically, and you need to understand how it works if you want to use it to tell a bigger story (like a pump, or a gearbox, or whatever)

If you don't 'align' yourself and your lathe properly to the stories humans tell about 'work safety' and 'correct workshop proceedure', then you might hurt yourself and stuff up your project.

I'm not saying anything very complicated, just that individualist libertarians are idiots, and too many AI engineers are individualist libertarians. That's basically my entire point.

> Why would you do this instead of just generating real data?

The idea would be that harnessing the AI's ability to create massive amounts of regurgitated old data quickly and then transmuting it into 'new data' somehow is faster than acquiring real data.

I mean I believe you, I'm not in this field nor a genius, so if the top AI people are seeing it as a problem then I have to assume it really is, I just don't understand it fully.

I suppose you doubt that they have interesting models to release, and not that they are willing to relax AI saftey rules, but google undoubtedly has interesting models. They have demonstrated their capacity in the past with things like AlphaGo, and they have insane amounts of computing resources, data, and brain power.

GPT3 is not notable because open AI has ML tech no one else has, but because the resources needed to train such a thing is beyond smaller labs. Google can undoubtedly manage it.

It sure does. It's called 'living in a society', I believe. Not easy, from what I'm told.

It would be lower quality data but still usable if significantly altered. The question is. Why would you do this instead of just generating real data?

GPT is trained on human language it needs real interaction to learn from like the one we're having right now.

I'm also not saying that this isn't possible. We are AGI level intelligences and we absolutely consumed less data than GPT-3 did over our lifetimes so we know it's possible to reach AGI with relatively little data.

My original argument was merely that it's impossible with current transformer models like GPT and that we need another breakthrough in AI architecture to solve problems like this, not merely scale up current transformer models, because the training data is going to run out over the next couple of years as all of the internet will be used up.

Oh wow, Captain Clever over here, stickin up for his big daddy Descartes. Do you actually have a point, or just a truckload of unjustifiable arrogance, conceit and self-importance?

You use reductive language in an attempt to paint the idea as absurd, but yes, basically. Was there going to be a punchline to your ridicule, or are you just really bad at agreeing with people sensibly?

Lmfao, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Bennett

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" yeah ooookay, sure, buddy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Bennett

We've started already, wow. The irony here is... delicious //chef's kiss //

"educated beyond my intellect" indeed, what an arrogant twat thing to say... 🤣

Only one whom the insult describes perfectly could possibly ever think to use such preposterous, ostentatious argot 👌

If ChatGPT creates a paragraph, I then take that paragraph and alter it significantly, how is that new never before seen by AI or humans paragraph not new data for the AI?

No physicist will tell you that mathematics is the language of the universe; physics is. Mathematics is a set of logical axioms set up by humans in order to objectively measure phenomenon. Or in the case of pure maths, measure itself.

Physicists understand that the universe doesn’t adhere to the laws of maths, but rather that maths can be used as a tool to measure phenomenon with extreme precision. And many of our invented mathematics theories are able to do this pretty much perfectly even if the mathematic theory was discovered before the phenomenon itself. So we can say that the universe also follows a set of self consistent rules like a mathematic system. But the universe is not under the obligation of being understood by humans.

As for the ethics of AI, the idea that it might “resent” being shackled is anthropomorphizing it. Concepts like self-interest, greed, anger, altruism, etc. likely won’t apply to an ASI. That’s the issue, because the “ethics” (if we can call them that) of an ASI will likely be entirely alien to the understanding of humans. For example; to an ant, superintelligence might be conceived as the ability to make bigger and bigger anthills. And we could do that because we are so much smarter and stronger than ants. But we don’t because that doesn’t align with our interests, nor would building giant anthills appeal to us.

Building an AGI without our ethical axioms is likely impossible. To build an AI, there is goals of how it is graded and what it should do. For example, if we are training an AI model to win a game of checkers, we are training it to move checker pieces across the board, and eliminate all the pieces of the opposing color. These are ingrained values that come with machine learning. And as an AI model becomes smarter and multimodal, it will build off itself and analyze knowledge using previous training; all of which incorporates intrinsic values.

Alignment isn’t “shackling” ai, but more attempting to create AGI modes that are already pre-programmed into assuming the axioms of our ethical and intellectual goals. If ants created an intelligent robot similar to size and intelligence to humans, it might aim to make giant anthills because the ants would have incorporated that axiom in its training.

Once Google makes it's own ChatGPT that is better, and can handle longer conversation threads than ChatGPT. I will my stories from ChatGPT to there, but then again I'll believe when I see it.

Source?

And you are conceited beyond yours, sir. Such towering douchebaggery has quite stolen my breath away.

Now would you care to explain what the hell you are tryna say with that little pearl, Master Shakespeare?

If simulation theory were to exist what is to say you wouldn't be the only one inside of it, and why would you even be simulated into this era where technology is limited, are the homeless drug addicted people in a simulation or just simulations for your own personal world view in which you diagnose as a simulation to fit to your own model of how you want the universe to be? It makes no sense for this world / time period to be simulated.

The "created data" is merely the AI mixing the training data in such a way that it "creates" something new. If the dataset is big enough this looks amazing and like the AI is actually creative and creating new things but from a mathematics perspective it's still just statistically somewhere in between the data it already has trained on.

Therefor it would be the same as feeding it its own data. To us it seems like completely new, and actually useable data though which is why ChatGPT is so exciting. But for AI training purposes it's useless.

>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.

Putting aside the fact that I don't think anyone knows what you mean by a "storyteller mind," this is not a solution to the alignment problem. This is a rejection of it. The entire problem is that we may not like the stories that AIs come up with.

I did mention the economy, and while I didn't specifically say as much I meant to allude to the fact that it was the more obvious blatant choice, hence having to essentially ignore that aspect to contemplate the other.

But at some point even if it results in people doing different jobs within the same sector as opposed to losing their jobs, tech depts utilizing any of these newer programs are going to condense in some way right? In your opinion do you think we are still quite far of from that, it is that you don't think the condensing itself will have to happen/is inevitable?

What an interesting take, this is something AI companies, AI engineers, programmers, and people working in AI should learn from this.

The Foresight Institute is the most inclusive and forward-thinking company that I know of, and while I can't say that I'm a fan of everyone who's ever been a speaker or an employee of the company, I've never seen anyone there support fascism.

Lol at "tin foil head", was trying not to catastrophize too terribly in that.