Submitted by kegzilla t3_yk5kgj in singularity
Comments
luffreezer t1_iurc0vf wrote
It's happening boys !
Transhumanist01 t1_iureh39 wrote
!RemindMe 1 hour
ihateshadylandlords t1_iurej42 wrote
Cool, I’m excited to see how this impacts robotics down the road.
!RemindMe 5 years
RemindMeBot t1_iurelcx wrote
I will be messaging you in 1 hour on 2022-11-02 15:01:07 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
| ^(Info) | ^(Custom) | ^(Your Reminders) | ^(Feedback) |
|---|
Reddituser45005 t1_iurg3ol wrote
This is not unexpected but it is significant. It has always been tedious and time consuming to program robots via points or paths. Parallel improvements in vision systems and spatial awareness puts us on the threshold of a major revolution in robotics
ProShortKingAction t1_iurhi4z wrote
How do you prevent the robot from writing unsafe code? If it is continually adding new code without being checked by devs or a security team it seems like you'd run into the issue of there always being the possibility of it being one instruction away from generating code that includes a dangerous vulnerability
Reeferchief t1_iurikky wrote
What does this mean for robotics? I'm a simple man, I need a simple explanation.
Sashinii t1_iurjuwo wrote
Quote from the article: "Code as policies is a step towards robots that can modify their behaviors and expand their capabilities accordingly."
Sashinii t1_iurkiad wrote
They address the potential negatives with built-in safety checks, while also encouraging suggestions for other methods to ensure that the AI is as safe as possible.
ProShortKingAction t1_iurmfoc wrote
Sorry, I took that as them saying they had built-in safety checks that are meant to prevent the robot from doing an unsafe physical action not prevent it from writing vulnerable code. I might have misinterpreted that.
Another thing I would like to bring up in the favor of this model of going about things is that vulnerabilities slip through in regular code all the time, this approach doesn't have to be perfect just more safe than the current approach. It's like with driverless cars, they don't have to be perfect just more safe than a car driven by a human which seems like a low bar. I just don't see anything from this post that implies a safe way to do this approach isn't rather far off
Edit: In the Twitter thread made by one of the researchers posted elsewhere in this thread they very vaguely mention "... and many potential safety risks need to be addressed" its hard to tell if this is referencing the robot physically interacting with the world, cybersecurity concerns, or both.
Reeferchief t1_iurniyc wrote
Ah, all I had to do was the bare minimum and read lool.
HyperImmune t1_iursrgf wrote
I have a white collar job. I’m hoping things like this will augment my job so I can automate most of what I do with simple verbal prompts, and spend a majority of my time doing what I want while my AI assistant does most of my work. That is until we totally hit post scarcity and I can full dive into VR worlds for the rest of my existence.
Kaarssteun t1_iurvcjt wrote
Every passing day I am more tempted to create the international Party of the Future
TheSingulatarian t1_iurz91y wrote
Will there be cake at this party?
TheSingulatarian t1_iurze4f wrote
So that's where the idea of "Kill All Humans" comes from.
TheSingulatarian t1_iurzjl4 wrote
Recursive self-improvement. The beginning of the end/beginning of the beginning.
mikeyblaze223 t1_ius0g5j wrote
That’s the real question I want to know.
Ok-Hunt-5902 t1_ius3qh0 wrote
No only blackjack and hookers, sorry
NotLondoMollari t1_ius4g2g wrote
But like, we could also do a dessert potluck.
cutoffs89 t1_ius82xb wrote
This is insane!
epSos-DE t1_iuscqxi wrote
generalization and maximalism is the issue of robot code.
The 9 e I have seen from the example all lack exception cases and stop limits = robot will keep making the same mistake for ever.
Also, do NOT worry the robot code could be translated by the AI to human words. A tool for this can be written by the AI itself.
Future job will be robot code debugger. Like a therapist for the ribots or AI 💕👍👍😱
botfiddler t1_iusf6zm wrote
And for those without Twitter: https://nitter.dark.fail/jackyliang42/status/1587798590386233344
botfiddler t1_iusg0hm wrote
It's fun switching between reading here and r/collapse
apinanaivot t1_iushcm0 wrote
To be fair, this doesn't yet reprogram itself. It creates generic human-like code to perform actions on a physical robot. It doesn't write machine learning algorithms.
pisspoorplanning t1_iusi3ou wrote
Strictly disco biscuits.
pisspoorplanning t1_iusia3k wrote
DookieDemon t1_iusils1 wrote
What if the bot writes a code that is malicious somehow? But is also some complex/counterintuitive that humans stand no chance to defeat it?
Essentially like in the games of chess or go, robots have become unbeatable
visarga t1_iusjony wrote
GPT-3 can also do "data science" - Pandas and SQL from natural language instructions and can manipulate a UI in a similar way to this paper.
visarga t1_iusk21l wrote
They do a few preventive measures.
> we first check that it is safe to run by ensuring there are no import statements, special variables that begin with __, or calls to exec and eval. Then, we call Python’s exec function with the code as the input string and two dictionaries that form the scope of that code execution: (i) globals, containing all APIs that the generated code might call, and (ii) locals, an empty dictionary which will be populated with variables and new functions defined during exec. If the LMP is expected to return a value, we obtain it from locals after exec finishes.
visarga t1_iuskkry wrote
The previous paper displayed common sense knowledge transfer from language model to robotics - such as how to clean a coke spill, this one adds Python on top for numerical precision and reliable execution.
Everyone here thinks blue collar jobs are still safe. They're wrong. Stupid robots + language model = smart robots. Don't look at Spot that it only knows how to open dors and climb stairs, it can be the legs for the LLM.
So LLMs besides being AI writers and task solvers, can also code, do data science, operate robots and control application UIs. Most of these have their own startups/large companies behind. I think it's gonna be the operating system of 2030.
ProShortKingAction t1_iuskyif wrote
This seems to be saying "safe to run" as in make it less likely to crash not as in prevent cybersecurity issues.
DungeonsAndDradis t1_iusputn wrote
Ahh, a fellow Utopia Doomer.
ExtraFun4319 t1_iustvpq wrote
>so basic income has to be implemented as soon as possible.
And if all jobs don't become obsolete this decade (which is an extreme take)?
Though I will admit that UBI should be a thing regardless of how many people are employed. Nobody should have to work to survive.
[deleted] t1_iusu6ng wrote
[deleted]
ninjasaid13 t1_iuszwmn wrote
>basic income has to be implemented as soon as possible.
but every job has to be replaced for everyone to think UBI needs to be implemented. Even all the pseudo work.
freeman_joe t1_iutdw5j wrote
Not funny at all I hope for singularity but am afraid of collapse. Both are realistic.
Ivan_The_8th t1_iutlgkp wrote
Both will happen at some point.
freeman_joe t1_iutlmsw wrote
If collapse will be global and total singularity won’t happen.
BIGBODYALI t1_iutm5dg wrote
Oh fuck, oh no. need my job
tokkkkaaa t1_iutp2jx wrote
lmao very clever
tatleoat t1_iuu1jpf wrote
I think if AI can do our jobs it may be able to advocate for itself better than any of us can
AI_Enjoyer87 t1_iuu36sf wrote
Jobs are for robots!
[deleted] t1_iuu9gm4 wrote
[deleted]
trogon t1_iuucqy8 wrote
Yeah, give it three weeks or so.
naossoan t1_iuukbpk wrote
I'm definitely on the collapse side myself
threefriend t1_iuuq9xg wrote
Should be afraid of the singularity, too, tbh. Could be the best thing ever, but could also be the worst.
Ivan_The_8th t1_iuuzlqg wrote
Unless the entire universe is destroyed, there would be a species that reaches it.
apinanaivot t1_iuv3z4m wrote
That's what I said.
Bierculles t1_iuv7jds wrote
The AI revolution will be the collapse
Awkward-Loan t1_iuvhu4s wrote
It's complex, but easier to spot then you think. When you break it down enough it's just patterns which the obvious sticks out like a sore thumb if you know what your looking for.
LearnDifferenceBot t1_iuvhxic wrote
> what your looking
*you're
Learn the difference here.
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply !optout to this comment.)
visarga t1_iuvrqym wrote
it prevents access to various Python APIs, exec and eval
it's just a basic check
freeman_joe t1_iuw164q wrote
Yes I agree but long term singularity will probably be positive. Emphasis on word probably.
freeman_joe t1_iuw17ry wrote
I meant humans.
mewme-mow t1_iuwlx6w wrote
Lol, this has been really accurate lately.
mnamilt t1_iuwqf3e wrote
I normally hate these bots, but in this specific context this is actually extremely funny.
Different-Froyo9497 t1_iuxtse9 wrote
Maybe. Robots for blue collar work don’t scale the same as white collar work. Even if AGI were created today, it would take a long time before we can make enough construction/farming/manufacturing/etc. robots to take the place of billions of people. In fact even if robot growth were exponentially doubling each year it would take ~30 years to reach 5 billion robots. (I’m admittedly ignoring some important factors as to why we might need UBI sooner than 32 years)
Different-Froyo9497 t1_iuxuozp wrote
It’s the year 2030, and has been 3 months into the robot apocalypse. Teslabot version 69.420 has found your hiding spot in the ruins.
You - Please stop this madness! Your destroying humanity!
Teslabot - You’re*
proceeds to murder you
Awkward-Loan t1_iv9miez wrote
Awkward-Loan t1_iv9mrvh wrote
Please don't murder us🥺 I'll be you're best friend!
kegzilla OP t1_iurbvqr wrote
Twitter thread from one of the researchers https://twitter.com/jackyliang42/status/1587798590386233344