I was referring to existential risks. You’re completely misrepresenting the concern.

Nobody serious is concerned about that, and focusing on it distracts from the actual issues.

*for six months for very large models.

For the record, I don’t think this is going to work, but I’m glad people are at least recognizing the gravity of the situation.

Yeah, I can see that. They do too.

They’ve confirmed on Twitter that they support it.

Like Max Tegmark, Emad Mostaque, and other prominent figures in the science/AI space.

The esteemed signatories confirmed their support independently. That some trolls signed it as fictional characters is totally irrelevant.

I’m sure it is, considering any troll can sign, but the big names that were being debated in earlier threads (e.g. Tegmark and Mostaque) have confirmed their support.

> This is so wrong I will not bother with the rest of the claims, this author is unqualified

I find these comments pretty amusing. The author you’re referring to is François Chollet, an esteemed and widely published AI researcher whose code you’ve probably used if you’ve ever played around with ML (he created Keras and, as a Google employee, is a key contributor to Tensorflow).

So no, he’s not “unqualified,” and if you think he’s confused about a very basic area of human or machine cognition, you very likely don’t understand his claim, or are yourself confused.

Based on your response, you’re probably a little of both.

How do you intuit mathematical concepts?

Robin Hanson is another prominent intellectual of this belief.

See: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/the-betterness-explosionhtml

And his debate with Yudkowsky: https://youtu.be/TuXl-iidnFY

He doesn’t die in the movie, but it’s implied that he will.

I was referring to Caleb.

It deceives and ultimately kills the protagonist without an ounce of regret. I would not call that optimistic.

Iirc the film was meant as a feminist social commentary rather than a cautionary tale about AI though lol.

It’s not that long.

That’s not the whole story. Facebook trained the model, their data was leaked, and the Stanford guys fine-tuned it to make it function more like ChatGPT. Fine-tuning is easy.

>Or if I had all Google search results saved in a database I could access during the test!

You mean like your long-term memory? To be clear, GPT doesn’t have the raw training information available for reference. In a sense, it read it during training, extracted the useful information, and is now using it.

If it’s answering totally novel reasoning questions, that’s a pretty clear indication that it’s gone beyond just modeling syntax and grammar.

GPT isn’t using Google during the test to look things up.

If you want a fair competition, you have a month to read through the internet, then we can see how you perform on all the major standardized tests lol.

>machines don't do what you intend, they do what they're made to do.

It seems like, whether you use top-down machine-learning techniques to evolve a system according to some high-level spec or you use bottom-up conventional programming to rigorously and explicitly define behavior, what’s unspecified (ML case) or misspecified (conventional case) can bite you in the ass lol… it’s just that ML allows you to generate way more (potentially malignant) capability in the process.

There’s also possible weird inner-alignment cases where a perfectly specified optimization process still produces a misaligned agent. It seems increasingly obvious that we can’t just treat ML as some kind of black magic past a certain capability threshold.

Yes.

I’m rather skeptical of that, but regardless, artificial super intelligence will be so far beyond human abilities that it will seem god-like.

> at the same time comment that 'AI doomers' shouldn't be doomer about it?

Where did I say that or even imply it..?

This seems like a stretch. GPT might be the most general form of artificial intelligence we’ve seen, but it’s still not an agent, and it’s still not cognitively flexible enough to really be general on a human level.

And just scaling up the existing model probably won’t get us there. Another large conceptual advancement that can give it something like executive function and tiered memory seems like a necessary precondition. Is there any indication at this point that such a breakthrough has been made?

I feel like even here people generally don’t think big enough. If we manage to create AGI with greater than human capabilities, we’ll have basically invented god.

It’s probably impossible to imagine what that could mean.

> Simply put, the poor, uneducated, extremely religious minded, are the main drivers of the fear complex

Oh come on… Have you seen /r/technology recently? Have you read mainstream tech journalism? Have you watched science fiction? There is a very negative, very cynical view of technology that’s become mainstream in recent years, and it’s coming from the cultural elites.