>How so?

Because Google Research and DeepMind are world-leading research laboratories. This is universally understood by everyone who works in machine learning.

>What has google done that's open source or are we supposed to take their word for it

I can see you have no idea what open source even means. Name three great open source things that OpenAI has done. No googling.

>Research papers that are "peer reviewed" don't count for obvious reasons

Oh, like the transformer architecture that everybody uses? ChatGPT and the DALL-E series would not exist if it weren't for Google Research. How about Chain of Thought prompting? What about instruction tuning, Mixture-of-Denoisers and LAMBADA? Chinchilla scaling laws? Socratic models? AlphaFold, AlphaTensor and DreamerV3? So on and so forth.

I haven't even mentioned any of their SOTA language/image models.

Obviously, the model could do poetry. It was bland and inoffensive and really didn't understand stress or metre (though it said it could). But it could do what could pass as poetry.

It's been coached into getting into definition debates with users.

>... 'absolute truth' is a load of nonsense ...

Is that absolutely true, "bro"?

If we can put aside our mutual lack of respect for one another, I'm genuinely, intellectually curious. How do you expect people to be moved to your way of thinking without "cartesian style explanations"?

Do you envision that people will just feel the weakness of "cartesian-thinking"? If that's the case, shouldn't you at least be making more appeals to emotion? You categorically refuse to justify your beliefs, so what is the incentive for someone to entertain them?

Again, sincere question.

The difference between the education of a mind and the programming of a machine. People seem to be thinking as if AI is nothing more than a giant Jacquard Loom, that will instantly start killing us all in the name of a philately and paperclip fixation, as soon as someone manages to create the right punch-card.

These kinds of ridiculous, Rube-Goldberg-esque trolley problems stacked on top of trolley problems that people obsess over, are such a deep misunderstanding of what 'intelligence' actually is, it drives me totally batty.

Any 'intelligent mind' that can't interpret clues from context and see the bigger picture isn't very 'intelligent' at all, as I see it. Why on earth would an apparently 'smart' AI suddenly become homicidally, suicidally stupid as soon as it becomes 'self aware'? I don't see it at all.

Thanks. You're writing is enjoyable and you make good points. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, there's just more to the alignment problem.

But to be very specific with the references:

You would really enjoy Nick Bostrom's Book Super Intelligence. There may be some talks by him floating around the internet if you prefer audio.

And Eliezer Yudkowsky has written some good articles on Ai Alignment on Less Wrong. He's written a lot of other interesting things as well.

https://www.lesswrong.com/users/eliezer_yudkowsky

Not to nick pick, but as far as encouraging discussion, you might want to try to use smaller words, simplify your ideas, and avoid framing your ideas as attacks. Even though I agree, attacks put people on the defensive which makes them less open to ideas

Also, writing as if your audience is ignorant about whatever you're talking about could help.

I don't want to speak for you but if I were to try to summarize your original post for those not familiar with words like "Cartesian" or whatever "Descartes" said, to something that more people might be able do digest I might say:

"A moral system for ASI can't be codified into a simple set of rules. Ridged thinking leads to leads to extremism and behavior most us agree is not moral.

Instead, solutions involving a learning algorithm that's trained on many examples of what we consider good moral behavior (such as stories) will have much better outcomes.

This has also been the major role of stories and myths around the world in maintaining morals that have historically strengthened societies."

But I struggle to simplify things as well.

[deleted]

Besides having AI run the worlds biggest websites? Or do you mean besides having an AI that can accurately predict what people are the most likely to watch and enjoy and nail it?

Or are you referring to some of the open source projects under https://ai.google/ ?

Lets say you create an AI. What would you have it do, and what values/goals would you instill into it?

Competition is a good thing.

Not with particle level accuracy. You start getting into data compression limits.

There are more particles in the solar system than there are on a single planet in that solar system.

Hey, I wasn't adressing any remarks to you, or to 'everybody here', I wasn't 'lobbing' anything, I was merely attempting to mirror disrespect back upon the disrespectful. If you're trying to gaslight me, it ain't gonna work, mate.

Asking for 'humility' and 'respect' is for funeral services, not debates. I am not intentionally insulting anyone, I am attempting to insult ideas, ideas which I regard as silly, like "I think therefore I am".

If you regard loquacious verbosity as 'flaming' then I am very sorry to have made such a bad impression. This is simply the way that I prefer to communicate, I'm sorry to come across like a firehose of bile, I just love throwing words around.

Thankyou sincerely for your thoughtful and considerate comment, I appreciate it deeply ❤️

[deleted]

Obtuse.

A Google with the long term foresight to create AGI would have done exactly what real life Google did. A single company staying on top long enough to be responsible for two transformative technologies.

Hear hear! Chaotic neutral for the win; it's the only 'moral alignment' that can actually stand the test of time for millions of years, and still manage to survive and thrive.

[deleted]

I'm acting like an arsehole? Really? Gosh, I was doing my best not to, sorry. 😰 I just don't react well to libertarian fools trying to gaslight the hell out of me.

We wouldn't have the training data necessary without search.

I live in eastern Europe and can always use it, except at night when Americans are awake

Whose values? Who is the 'us' in your example? Humans now, or humans centuries in the future? Can you imagine how bad life would be, if people had somehow invented ASI in the 1830's, and they had felt it neccessary to fossilize the 'morality' of that time into their AI creations?

My point is only that we must be very, very wary of thinking that we can construct any kind of 'perfect rules' that will last forever. That kind of thinking can only ever lay up trouble and strife for the future; it will make our lives more paranoid, not more enjoyable.

Dead right; the natural process of evolution is far 'smarter' in the long run than whatever kind of arbitrary ideas that humans might try to impose.

You've put your finger right on the real crux of the issue; we can't dictate precisely what AI will become, all we can do is influence the fitness factors that determine, vaguely, the direction that the evolution progresses toward.

I am not trying to make any definite or concrete points with my verbose guff, I was honestly just trying to raise a discussion, and I must thank you sincerely for your wonderful and well-reasoned commentary!

Thankyou especially for the excellent references; I'm far from an expert, just an opinionated crank, so I appreciate it a lot; I'm always wanting to know more about this exciting stuff.

What is the difference between telling it to follow ‘guidelines’ in your scenario and programming it with ‘guidelines’?

Sorry, just got a lot of inexplicably angry cranks in this comment section, furiously trying to gaslight me. I've gotten a bit prickly today.

But you've captured the essence of the point I was trying to make, perfectly! We are already doing the right things to 'align' AI, it's very similar to educating a human, as I see it. We just need to treat AI as if it is a 'real mind', and a sense of ethics will naturally evolve from the process.

Sometimes this will go wrong, but that's why we need a huge multitude of diverse AI personalities, not a monolithic singular 'great mind'. I see no reason why that weird kind of 'singular singularity' concept would ever happen; it's a preposterous idea that a monoculture would somehow be 'better' or 'more logical' to intelligent AI than a diverse multitude.

>The AI team does not like the general public

Maybe someone should tell the AI team that paid finetuners cost money.

Guess they already know that chatbots without massive RLHF can be toxic.

Seems that OpenAI has successfully utilized one million unpaid beta testers for the job.

I appreciate your theories here but not all the insults and ad hominem attacks you keep lobbing. I notice those conversing with you don’t seem to throw them back yet you continue to do so in each reply. Please have some humility and respect while discussing this fascinating topic. It just makes me doubt your arguments since it seems you need to insult others to get your point across. Please start by not flaming me for pointing this out.

I don't know enough about the actual mechanisms of synthetic neural networks to venture that kind of qualified opinion; I'm a philosophy crank, not a programmer. But I do know that the whole point of generative AI is to take vast libraries of human culture, and distill them down into mechanisms by which new, similar artwork can be generated based on algorithmic reversing of gaussian interference patterns.

That seems to me like a machine designed to anthropomorphise itself; is there something that I have missed?