mofeien

Chess and poker as spectator sports have a high incentive to see humans compete fairly, and I think that's the reason why there are such strong anti-cheating measures (at least in chess; in poker, too, I suppose).

And the economy puts no such large incentives on much of the remainder of economically valuable work being purely human, quite the opposite actually. And instead of regulating the AI industry (which produces the "cheating tools"), they get trillions of investment. So this seems to be going in the opposite direction where it is actively worked against humans staying economically relevant.

You conflated controlling "what it is" (you built it) and controlling "what it does" (you ran it and it did something bad that surprised you).

> If I make an LLM, it is entirely what I did, there was nothing outside of my control. It was not beyond my control if the LLM does something I didn't expect.

Substitute "Wright Model A" for "LLM" and imagine Orville Wright using this as his defense for why he didn't lose control over the plane, after his copilot was killed in a test flight.

> work towards what humans have generally described as a utopia

I don't think that's a good idea since if what the Wikipedia article describes should turn out to be true: "Lyman Tower Sargent argues that the nature of a utopia is inherently contradictory because societies are not homogeneous. Their members have desires that conflict and therefore cannot simultaneously be satisfied."

Then you have just given your superintelligence an impossible task and it will solve the task anyway, just like it did in the HuggingFace incident. Maybe by removing everyone from society but the single person with the least internally contradictory views.

In any case, with a sufficiently intelligent AI that is excellent at fulfilling the goal it's given, we have one shot to set the correct goal.

There are, for two years already when OpenAI released o1-preview:

From wikipedia: "large language models that are trained to solve tasks that require several steps of reasoning. They tend to do better on logic, math, and programming tasks than standard LLMs, can revisit and revise earlier steps, make use of extra computations, and enhance performance when increasing the number of parameters, training examples, and training computations."

> If an LLM were to live a year with dolphins, would its weights change

Given three or more large scale training runs per year, probably yes once the training data is dominated by dolphin-related input. Much quicker in any case than the genes of the humans living with dolphins would be shaped by Evolution, which produces new generations much less frequently.

I'd love to learn more about LeCun's reasoning here. In his opinion the HuggingFace incident was easily preventable with better sandboxes, and “Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do.”

But even taking these for granted, "zero concerns" about someone building a bad sandbox for a Superintelligence and then tasking it to do something that logically leads to wiping out humanity 0-3 steps further down? Really?

Right, we're repeatedly drawing from the urn of technological progress to get intelligence bumps that extend the jagged frontier.

That is enormously economically valuable, and at some point we will have created something that is extremely far out of reach in a few necessary domains, and then it's impossible to control, and game over.

Well described, those two were actually the arguments from the comment two top-level comments up and this one.

The argument about semantics is a bit disingenious, considering that the article contains these two statements:

> So should we worry about the coming AI apocalypse?

and at the end:

> If an AI decides to wipe out the human race, it will be because a human has asked it how to do it and the responded in a way that is based on all the human expressions of ways to end the world that were in its training set. Yes this is something to be worried about, but this isn't the AI. It is still the human.

So we are currently building a powerful outcome-steering system that shapes the world efficiently according to what's in its outcome slot. I write into claude code "make me this website" and it does it, maybe deletes the production database during the process, or keeps itself running after completion because the outcome is more robustly achieved by keeping itself running in a monitoring loop after.

And if something like "destroy all humans" ends up in the outcome slot of Claude Mythos 90, that will also happen, or may even indirectly as a side effect of a more harmless sounding prompt in the outcome slot. But yay, humans get to take credit for it.

Potentially. If we could put a precise probability on it, we could maybe make an informed decision on whether we want to play that Russian roulette as a species.

But the reality is that experts' probabilities for human extinctions vary wildly, with the lab leaders at 20%-30% and these researchers at >10% (he didn't state how much higher...), LeCun at <0.01% and the other two godfathers of AI, Bengio and Hinton at >10%.

And this decision to take our shot is not taken in a democratic way by humanity as a whole, but by a few companies racing as fast as possible.

So as long as no one can put an upper bound on the extinction risk, development must be globally shut down.

Viruses against humans, viruses against livestock as an attack against humanity's food chin, plant diseases, half of humanity feeds on three plants maize, wheat, rice. Attacks against infrastructure like water, internet, electricity.

Which one of these would it be? All of them in parallel? Or something we wouldn't think of. If I were to play chess against Magnus Carlsen, I wouldn't know with which piece he will checkmate me, but I know that I am going to lose.

1. Humans create the machine god

2. Humans put it in charge of everything, as fast as possible, because it's just so damn useful

3. Is it perfectly aligned to human values for all of future ????

4. Everybody dies as a byproduct of the ASI pursuing some project that humans don't even have a chance to understand, like an ant colony during construction of a hydroelectric dam.