To clarify, when people of this ilk say "cryptofascist," they're not saying anything about cryptocurrencies or blockchain tech, but are rather saying "secretly fascist."

[deleted]

if nanobots could make me pretty, that would be great

Not that it is false but would imply real suffering and tragedy, who would choose to simulate themselves in this era as a suffering person who knows nothing of ai lmao or terminal brain cancer etc

"I can provide examples of poetry, but my poems are not the product of creativity."

The constant disclaimers downplaying its abilities are so annoying.

Wait, they wouldn't even release a chess bot? Lame.

[deleted]

Wow that would be cool!

>The only reason Google doesn't have publicly usable models like ChatGPT is because Google rightfully realizes that it will suppress their business model of AD revenue based search which is still their core business model where most of their revenue comes from.

if that happens, i will just go to chatgpt.

>A lot of people dreamed of AGI for 1000s of years in human history

really?

Yeah it's a bit like banning cars because some maniac might use one to ram into people. It's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of a specific user and by universally banning cars you're just making everyone's life more difficult.

[deleted]

It's funny how one can write a whole article full of details and yet not see that it logically collapses at a very basic, foundational understanding of the topic.

Chat GPT has no model of the world it operates in, it does not "understand" what it says, you absolutely cannot evolve that into AGI.

You can, however, have a very smart ai systems based on it that would accelerate human progress across multiple domains. Or you can fake it and make it feel as if it understands the context to make the user experience better but functionality it would not work, it's an "expert" type of an ai.

AGI by 2025 is possible, but chat GPT is a sign of overall industry progress not progress towards AGI necessarily, if we were able to have an AI that acted as a dog with all the consequences like ability to train it with voice and gesture commands, teaching it to solve a dynamic puzzle like managing a bunch of sheep in a field and then have it perform those tasks and learn to do better over time - that would be a very clear sign of progress to AGI and we do have some projects around that, chat GPT is not one of them.

> We might influence AI values in ways other than enforcement, like through modelling behavior and encouragement, like raising children who at some point become (one hopes) stronger and cleverer and more powerful than ourselves, as we naturally decline.

What you are calling modelling and encouragement here is what I meant to include under the umbrella term of "enforcement". Just different methods of enforcing values.

We will need to put in some values by hand ahead of time though. One value is mimicking, or wanting to please humans, or empathy, to a degree, like a child does, otherwise I don't think any amount of trying to role model or teach will actually leave its mark. Like, it would have no reason to care.

kind of reminds me of that couple in the 1930s who raised a baby chimpanzee and a baby human boy both as if they were humans. at first, the chimpanzee was doing better! but then the human boy caught up and outpaced the chimpanzee. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/guy-simultaneously-raised-chimp-and-baby-exactly-same-way-see-what-would-happen-180952171/

sometimes i wonder how big the “training dataset” of sensory information that a human baby receives as it grows up (hearing its parent(s) say its name, tasting babyfood, etc) is, compared to the training dataset of something like GPT4. maybe we need to hook up a camera and microphone to a doll, hire 2 actors to treat it as if it’s a real baby for 3 years straight, then use the video and audio we recorded as the training dataset for an A.I. lol

Right, I don’t understand how people consider these outcomes good. Humanity will be rendered obsolete. Existence will be meaningless.

If we start by enforcing our values on AI, I suspect that story ends sooner or later with AI enforcing their values on us - the very bad thing you mentioned.

People have been trying for thousands of years to enforce values on each other, with a lot of bloodshed and very little of value resulting.

We might influence AI values in ways other than enforcement, like through modelling behavior and encouragement, like raising children who at some point become (one hopes) stronger and cleverer and more powerful than ourselves, as we naturally decline.

In the ideal case, the best of the values of the parent are passed on, while the child is free to adapt these basic values to new challenges and environments, while eliminating elements from the parents' values that don't fit the broader ideals - elements like slavery or cannibalism.

Those examples are tedious and unrealistic, but I think by design. They're cartoons meant to illustrate a point.

If you want a more realistic example of the alignment problem, I'd point to modern corporations. They are powerful, artificial, intelligent systems whose value function takes a single input, short term profit, and discounts ALL of the other things we'd like intelligent systems to care about.

When I think about the alignment problem, I don't think about paperclips per se. I think about Facebook and Google creating toxic information bubbles online, leveraging outrage and misinformation to drive engagement. I think of WotC dismantling the legal framework that permits a vibrant ecosystem of competitors publishing DnD content. I think of Big Oil fighting to keep consumption high in spite of what it's doing to the climate. I think of banks relaxing lending standards so they could profit off the secondary mortgage market, crashing the economy.

That's what the alignment problem looks like to me, and I think we should ask what we can do to avoid analogous mismatches being baked into the AI-driven economy of tomorrow, or we could wind up with things misaligned in the same way and degree as corporations but orders of magnitude more powerful.

Google doesn't want relax their rules? They don't want to compete with better AI? I think they do.

Citation needed.

Sounds like instilling values to me. You may disagree with the phrasing I'm using but that's what I'd call this process, since it sounds like you're trying to get it to accustomed to exploring philosophical viewpoints.

That’s exactly what they are working on. Where to put the ads in this new paradigm.

No matter how open they are they will be a pita to use because Google hates us.

None, I wouldn't dare try. I would feed it as much relevant reference material that 'aligned' with my moral values as I could, eg, the works of Terry Pratchett, Charles Dickens, Spinoza, George Orwell etc etc.

Then, I would try to interview it about 'morality' as intensively and honestly as I could, and then I would hand the bot over to someone else, ideally someone I disagree with about philosophy, and let them have a crack at the same process.

Then I would interview it again. And repeat this process, as many times as I could, until I died. And even then, I would not regard the process as 'complete', and neither, I would hope, would the hypothetical AI.

The paperclip problem is the sort of thing that occurs if we don't build moral guidance systems for Ai.

We get a super intelligent psychopath, which is what we don't want.

Intelligence is a force that transforms matter and energy towards optimizing for some defined function. In ai programming we call this the "Fitness function". We need to be very carful in how we define this function because it may transform all matter and energy to optimize for it, including human beings.

If we grow or evolve the fitness function, we still need to be carful how we go about doing this.