Joke?

Wait till china starts funding a massive LLM and other governments start competing.

Hey man, just want you to know, you are not the only one who still believes in humans.

Humans can only rely on humans to save human's problems, not machines.

I wish I could see another result, but I would be surprised if the masses didn't get pushed into adopting some proprietary personalized cloud-based AI platform that operates on a lower tier ad-based revenue model and a premium subscription model. Local AIs might be a thing but at least for open source ones, probably not the norm and will have disadvantages as well as advantages.

Grim.

I think humans are not moral, powerful and responsible enough to handle powerful technologies. When nuclear weapons came out, everyone freaked out because we all seem to aware that if the technology went into the wrong hand, it would be disastrous for humanity. Alot of powerful tools are being used wrongly by humans. For example: vehicles, the internet and soon atificial intelligence. Vehicles are powerful walker, they walk for human, but as they walk for us, the need for us to be physical is also cut short, that's why alot of people living in first-world countries aren't as healthy as they are supposed to be. AI is a powerful thinker, they will replace human's thinking, not enrich our imagination as many has thought.

For the most part, I'm just not understanding your argument beyond you just not liking the alignment problem framing. I think you're being a bit too loquacious :) for clear communication.

Here come the stupid skynet jokes

Excellent, thank you for delivering. This is great.

The issue isn't about these specific AI tools, it's about the behavior of the players involved. It's an old argument, early success leads to a gold rush environment. Economic competition between AGI developers leads to increased risk taking, deploying a misaligned AGI to be first to market becomes more likely.

Here is a more formal outline of the underlying concern.

>The race for an artificial general intelligence: implications for public policy

I’m laughing at the funny post.

What?

Paywall and the spaywall extension can't find the article. Are we all supposed to be paying members of medium or am I missing something obvious?

EDIT: Incognito works

Both!

Fair, I should have swapped them!

What leads you to believe LLMs don't have first-order logic? I just tested it with ChatGPT and it seems to have a firm grasp on the concept. First-order logic seems to be pretty low on the totem pole of abilities of LLMs. Same with symbolic reasoning. Try it for yourself!

I am not exactly sure what you mean by abstraction for neural nets. Are you talking about having defined meanings of inputs, outputs, or internal parts of the model? I don't see why that would be necessary at all for general intelligence. It doesn't seem that humans have substantial, distinct, and defined meanings for most of the brain, except for language (spoken and internal). Which LLMs are also capable of.

The human brain seems to also be a giant function, as far as we can tell (ignoring any discussion about subjective experience, and just focusing on intelligence).

> This type of training detects concrete local patterns in the dataset, but that’s it - these models can’t generalize their observations in any way.

No offense, but this statement seems to really show a lack of knowledge about the last 6+ years of NLP progress. LLMs absolutely can generalize outside of the training set. That's kind of the entire point of why they've proved useful and why the funding for them has skyrocketed. You can ask ChatGPT to come up with original jokes using topics that you can be pretty certain have never been put together for a joke, you can ask it to read your code that has never been seen before and give recommendations and answers about it, you can ask it to invent new religions, etc etc.

These models are pretty stunning in their capability to generalize. That's the whole point!

[deleted]

[deleted]

I wonder what this position can accomplish practically ?

"we can't prove it" in the sense that Blake Lemoine would have made up the transcript? to get Google to remove him on purpose?! seems pretty far-fetched to me..

Just because I don't physically have access to these models, doesn't mean they don't exist. Google regularly works with other institutions when running research with PaLM and their other advancements, and people frequently duplicate their findings.

Additionally, we have access to things like Flan-T5, tiny models fine tuned with their latest work that are about as powerful as gpt3, 5b vs 170b parameters.

Umm... Judgement based upon the accreted precedents of the previous decisions I've had to make, and the stories that have influenced my priorities in life?

How do you make decisions about anything?

Also, I'm really not sure what you mean by the term 'post-modernist', I'm far from convinced that anybody knows what that term really means. It seems to get thrown around so liberally that it has watered the currency of expression.

I don't think that's the case. Please read the papers, look into the actual research - it sounds like you are like... Mad at Google, but that's a separate consideration than the tech they have. It's unquestionably better than any other LLMs we know about, regardless of how you feel about Google

Trying to break ChatGPT is the way that you figure out what it can and cannot do. You find where it fails and publicize that, and then OpenAI can fix it.

However, the number of people trying to break it is dwarfed by the number of people trying to use it for other things, so it's not like this is the cause of it being busy. Just wait till there is a subscription model (which I'm guessing is coming very soon) and then you can use it all you want for productive things.

Right now, it's an openly available toy and you don't get to decide how we play with it.

You're not thinking larger. Google searches aren't just things like, "What's the velocity speed required to break gravity?" or "What is the kwh rate in California for the last 10 years?"

People will still use Google, or some future permutation of it. Long as they are using Google, they are feeding them data, which they'll use to deliver ads (probably better than ever). It doesn't have to deliver those ads through Google.com, but in many other ways. They can still deliver your precise answer, but ender that, deliver products that are perfectly optimized to be exactly what you are looking for. If it's something you want to buy, or could potentially buy that you don't know you want yet... All this AI data Google will generate from you using their AI, will be able to deliver ads better than ever.

Say for instance you're a PERFECT candidate for solar panels on your roof. But it's nothing you ever even consider, never been educated on, haven't looked into, and just really aren't interested in it. Google will be able to use your AI searches to get such an intimate understanding of you, to realize, 'Visarga is an amazing cadidate for residential solar and they don't even know it. But they would absolutely love to get solar for their home if they knew more about it. The data shows they absolutely would be thrilled to have this. So we can now find a way to get them in contact with an installer so they can get solar."

That's MASSIVELY valuable for EVERYONE. The installer who wants to not spend time educating everyone, and seeking out ideal candidates, and the consumer who would be thrilled to get this, but has no idea about it. This is what Google already tries, and with the data AI models will be able to deliver, are going to optimize this beyond belief. Sure, you wont get your answer ad on a ChatGPT style interface, but that's probably not what the future of this AI integration is going to look like. It's not going to be some blank interface you're seeing now. It'll be integrated into other things.

People will use google to research and search things... Further, the search engine itself isn't where it needs to deliver ads. It's gathering data on you to figure out what you want and need in that moment, and if it's something to buy, they will use this data to optimally find exactly the most perfect product you are seeking. If anything this level of depth and AI will improve their ad delivery across the web.

You're acting like Google wont know how to adapt and instead just sit around complaining that their old model and way of doing things doesn't work.

If we are ready to leave the physical part of what currently makes up a human intellect then yes it will be bright. But I think, based on what I see on the social layer that most humans are not ready to leave physical reality behind. They can't even conceive the parallelism with an alternative server. They will choose to remain physical humans for as long as possible.