Amen! (sorry i couldn’t stop myself.)
I haven’t identified as Christian since reading the bible and realizing god is portrayed as some fucked up attention craving psycho.
But fictional Jesus is like the OG embodiment of woke. He doesn’t need to be real for the philosophy to be. If only more people followed his literal example.
No need to clarify what you meant with the oligarchs theres barely any exaggeration there. Ghouls is quite accurate.
Considering the context of a worst case possible scenario (hostile takeover by an artificial superior) which honestly is indistinguishable from general end of the world doomerism prophecies but very alive in the circles of Sutskeva i believe safe ai consistent of the very low bar of
“humanity survives wile agi improves the standards of living worldwide” of course for this i am reading between the lines based on previously aquired information.
One could argue that If ASI is created the possibilities become very black and white:
ASI is indifferent about human beings and pursues its own goals, regardless of consequences for the human race. It could even find a way off the planet and just abandon us.
ASI is malaligned with humanity and we become but a. Resource, treating us no different then we have historically treated animals and plants.
ASI is aligned with humanity and it has the best intentions for our future.
For either scenario it would be impossible to calculate its intentions because by definition its more intelligent then all of us. Its possible that some things that we understand as moral may be immoral from a better informed perspective, and vice versa.
The scary thing is we wont be able to tell wether its malicious and pretending to be good. Or benevolent and trying to fix us. Would it respect consent if say a racist refuses therapy?
Of course we can just as likely hit a roadblock next week and the whole hype dies out for another 10 years.
No i applaud a healthy dose of skepticism.
I am everything but in favor of idolizing silicon valley gurus and tech leaders but from Sutskeva i have seen enough to know he is one of the few to actually pay attention to
Artificial Super intelligence or ASI is the step beyond AGI (artificial general intelligence)
The later is equal or better in capacity to a real human being in almost all fields.
Artificial Super intelligence is defined (long before openai was a thing) as transcending human intelligence in every conceivable way. At which point its a fully independent entity that can no longer be controlled or shutdown.
Your entitled to that opinion, so are others. Sutsekeva may be an actual loony… or an absolute genius. Or both, that isn’t up to debate here.
I am just explaining what this about because if you think this is “just another money raiser” you obviously havent paid enough attention to who this guy is exactly.
Our singular focus means no distraction by management overhead or product cycles, and our business model means safety, security, and progress are all insulated from short-term commercial pressures.
This is the guy who turned against Sam for being to much about releasing product. I don’t think he plans on delivering much product at all. The reason to invest isn’t to gain profit but to avoid losing to an apocalyptic event which you may or may not personally believe, many Silicon Valley types do.
A safe Ai would be one that does not spell the end of Humanity or the planet. Ilya is famously obsessed with creating whats basically a benevolent AI god-mommy and deeply afraid for an uncontrollable, malicious Skynet.
There are very little people in the world that understand llms on such a deep technological level as Ilya.
I honestly don’t think there is much else in the world he is interested in doing other then work on aligning powerful ai.
Wether his almost anti commercial style end up accomplishing much i don’t know but his intention are literal and clear.
I don’t think coverage appropriate hairline is something that is on this guys mind.
To me he just scream massive (autistic) nerd. And i am all the more confident and supportive of him for it.
We need more smart people that dont care about appearance and charisma in leadership positions. I am not saying those are not useful in leaderships but theres to much of it in the tech industry .
He’s the guy that tried to stay true to the mission, realized that Sam was becoming a problem. Had little business sense to calculate the drama that ensued.
Realized that openAI getting destroyed in a single week was worse then having Sam run it. (Micrososoft and google where just going to gobble up the void)
Then was forced into compliance by Sam who had conditions to return. Add in the fact there long time Personal friends, Sam is a super high level speaker while Ilya usually keeps to themselves. The super stressful days everyone was on during the times.
You may understand why he didn’t want to continue fighting and just eased into a slow leave to do better elsewhere.
Well you could always just use the proper name. The cc license in question IS anti commercial. A great deal of ai is opens source and non commercial and to those cc is fair game. But if commercial is where you draw the line then envoking this license may do.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)
Calling it “anti-ai” when its not removes power from your argument. Your invoking something that does not exit and linking to something seemingly unrelated.
Now the bigger question i have, have had since i have seen people do this.
Why is there still not an actual anti-ai license? Seems obvious that there is a need for it? I dont know much about how licenses are created but it strikes me as odd.
Well i understand its to combat ai from training on your comments right, maybe also to poison the data?
I just don’t see what taking a non relevant licensee and giving it a different name is doing to stop that. Trivial to filter stuff like this out in a dataset.
At best an individual data scraping company decides to honor it out of kindness. At worst people think that its a real license and copy it with a false sense of security.
Just FYI the license in your comment doesn’t actually exist and the creative commons license it links to does not mention AI anywhere.
Before privacy guides changed there was a spreadsheet with all providers, security details and wether or not they have ever complied to government requesting access.
If i recall correctly proton did not score very great. Disroot did very well on paper but was considered new and had yet to proof itself
Anyone know if this (updated) information still exists?
In a few centuries people will speak of this thousand year old flower that can grant immortality.
Its true i do worry about shit ai being plastered within our devices but if you cut through the marketing you see a whole mix of machine learning and ai is used under the hood.
Some of these tools like ms paint auto removing backgrounds. And personal assistant like siri talking more fluently does seem like an improvement.
I have no hopes for winfows rewind but even for that we must admit its not actually available yet. Neither is apple ai.
So we are simply assuming that all of the tools they may put in are bad based on some current stupid ideas that are explored.
I commend you for believing most people know the difference.
Sadly thats not my experience.
The reporting are big clickbait but that doesn’t mean there is nothing left to learn from the old touring tests.
I dont know what the goal was they had in mind. It could just as well be “testing how overhyped the touring tests is when manipulated tests are shared with the media”
I sincerely doubt it but i do give them benefits of the doubt.
There is no competition in science (or at least there shouldn’t be). You are subjectively disqualified from judging llm’s if you draw your conclusions on an obvious trap which you yourself have stated is beyond the scope of what it was programmed to do.
To clarify:
People seem to legit think the jury talks to the bot in real time and can ask about literally whatever they want.
Its rather insulting to the scientist that put a lot of thought into organizing a controlled environment to properly test defined criteria.
In a normal conversation sure.
In this kind Turing tests you may be disqualified as a jury for asking that question.
Good science demands controlled areas and defined goals. Everyone can organize a homebrew touring tests but there also real proper ones with fixed response times, lengths.
Some touring tests may even have a human pick the best of 5 to provide to the jury. There are so many possible variations depending on test criteria.
If after 12 monty they actually comply then thats still a positive.
However i fear they may “fix” it with malicious compliance at 11 months and then the cycle repeats.
Instead what i think should happen is they should need to obtain “verified compliance” within a year. (Minus the time europe takes to check) and if the term expires the penalty goes up to eventually forced splitting up.