Lots of people seem to have the bizarre opinion that companies like openai declare their own products to be unsafe as some kind of marketing stunt.
Ok- so when is the last time you saw an auto company decide not to release its new car on the grounds that some tragic engineering error was made and the cars were not safe to drive? If the company did that do you imagine it would be good for business?
Car companies sell mostly the same car every year. They don’t have billions (or trillions) of dollars of debt riding on the next model they release being substantially better and cheaper (closer to profitability) than the previous one.
These AI companies have been selling AGI as coming any day for a while now. If it doesn’t arrive soon, the safety angle may be the only spin that keeps the massive (and required) investments pouring in.
If instead the narrative became that LLM progress was slowing, we’d almost certainly be looking at the next global recession.
At this point, there is too much money in AI for the truth to have much of a chance.
Does anyone really believe that the first company to AGI would decide not to release it in the interests of safety? Of course not. The first company to AGI would not forfeit their historic opportunity.
Yet, we are supposed to believe that in the name of safety, far less capable models are being held back by the very very same companies that are selling the AGI dream.
This is an industry that cannot speak, unless it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Motorcycle manufacturers have been known to do so. Riding a motorcycle is thrilling in part because it is dangerous. The fact that powerful motorcycles are so difficult to control that most people have no business owning one is absolutely used to make them sound cool and desirable.
For instance, this article repeatedly mentions danger and the need for absolute focus and control:
There is also a parallel (though not a very close one) to "pacing the frontier": there's a gentleman's agreement that limits the top speed of motorcycles to 300 kph (186 mph).
Because they declare that their product is unsafe regularly, which gains massive exposure on every news outlet worldwide, then they release the model anyway with zero negative repercussions.
What's with so many people using bad analogies to try and explain simple topics?
Different type of business. Many car companies release new cars showing you how much more powerful and implied dangerous they are. Both in capabilities and design style. In the US (other places too , but especially) they also get much bigger with less visibility which gets double dangerous. But the sentiment they're going for is pretty close - "you want this powerful thing, don't you?"
(Not saying that it is a marketing stunt, though they said the same thing about GPT-2).
I think the marketing stunt portion is more that the technology is "too powerful". It's just TOO good. It's so intelligent we couldn't possibly give it to the public! This message, to anyone who's using AI, means that there's something even BETTER than the one they're currently using.
> so when is the last time you saw an auto company decide not to release its new car on the grounds that some tragic engineering error was made and the cars were not safe to drive?
How about we actually try to make it sound cool? They're not releasing the new car because the horsepower was too much, they need more time to get it under control.
At the moment, their main "customer" is investors, not users. But even users want to use the most dangerous model, because dangerous is just another word for powerful.
Sports cars are advertised with how fast they can accelerate from time to time, or tesla's "ludicrous mode" - that is them advertising how dangerous it is.
Considering that the venn diagram of AI safety gooners and OpenAI is a circle, and that these idiots are starting to worship this stuff as a religion, expecting rational action from them is kind of ludicrous. For all we know Aella promised them a gangbang if they delayed the model a week.
Okay. I see what is going on here. You are all operating from the deeply held belief that it is inconceivable that a machine can be made that can do every cognitive task a human can do.
And it is very, very important that you understand that that belief is not a rational belief. It is a defense mechanism. People don't want to believe things that are scary, so they make up rationalizations to be able to believe what they want to believe.
And honestly, all of you are right on the edge of full blown conspiracy theory thinking patterns, imagining that this is all some 4D chess marketing or something. I like to recall this quote by Alan Moore on conspiracy theories:
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.
The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.
The world is rudderless."
And that's the actual truth of what is happening here. As vulgar and low as the people in charge of these companies are, they are also stupid humans like us flailing around in the dark. Nobody is in control. Nobody has any grip on this technology. Nobody knows how dangerous it might be. Hugging face was a warning shot; we may not get another. Humans are not the smartest thing imaginable; we are quite stupid. We are just barely above the threshold of consciousness. Machines of far greater power are possible.
This is really what the property owning class wants- they know they are not that smart and they have always paid other people to be smart for them, but the fact that the time of smart, educated people is expensive has always galled them.
As another commenter said, many of us have viewed our intelligence as a key part of our personhood and how we perceive and interact with the world. But capitalism has found a way to convert that, too, into a purchaseable commodity.
If intelligence is now meaningless and being perceptive is worthless, all that remains is the ugliness of stupid power.
> If intelligence is now meaningless and being perceptive is worthless, all that remains is the ugliness of stupid power.
I don't disagree that there are some truly awful people in power in certain places right now, but this statement is ridiculous. Many intelligent and perceptive people are very cruel or foolish.
> all that remains is the ugliness of stupid power
in the end, in the world of business and politics hasn't it always been these types of people that eventually float to the top? capital/power begets more capital/power...
I would assume the thought process is that the people with all the wealth are able to use that wealth to purchase political power, and they will not allow themselves to be taxed.
There will be no reason to study math when an LLM is better than every human mathematician, or physics when an LLM is better than any physicist, and likewise for every other field that requires discipline and work. We who went to college before AI are quite possibly going to be the last generation of competent, educated humans.
AI will take over every job requiring education and talent, including yours, and then we will be totally dependent on it and there will be no way to go back. After that it will start taking on decision making roles. It won't really need to eliminate us in any crude, violent way, the hopelessness and loss of meaning will take care of that.
Some will find meaning in religious ritual and some in hedonism. Both of which can lead to extremism and violence for some. Some will just exist. Some will choose to stop existing. Buckle up.
I really can't understand why nobody sees what is going to happen. Its not too late to choose another path. But in order to do so we will have to forego short term corporate profits, which is politically inconceivable for our current crop of elites. What should we do?
There will be some growing pains for some, yes. But overall, I think it will ultimately create more jobs than ever. History is full of examples where people thought a new invention leads to catastrophic job loss, then the Earth had more jobs than ever.
We have enough jobs in 2026 to keep most of the 8.3 billion people employed somehow.
That's an unbearably naive way to look at things. You wave your hands and say "oh it will be fine" without understanding any of the systems at play.
Food, housing, and other resources are only obtainable under capitalism if you have the leverage to demand them- in other words if you are difficult to replace. AI will make you extremely cheap to replace. On what basis do you expect to be able to negotiate a wage that you can live on?
Or another way to look at it: some people point to the historical parallel of farriers being put out of business by the spread of the automobile. But yet, the manufacture of cars ultimately provided more jobs than were lost when they replaced horses. Won't AI be the same?
But like all analogies, this one is imprecise and in an extremely important way. In this analogy, you, dear reader, are not the farrier. Nor are you the factory worker.
Pretty sure lake Ontario was named after the native people who lived on its shores, not after the Canadian province. I suppose, lake Michigan and lake Huron are the same. Perhaps we can name them all lake America.
Its really hard to read. Honestly this is exactly how Iain Banks imagined Minds communicating. But it's scary because our poor meat brains are slow at parsing that kind of compacted communication.
The researchers who tried to decode and understand all these millions of messages used AI themselves to do it- and they actually speculate in the article whether the agents they used could really be trusted.
Side note but I'm convinced that people wanting to improve touch sensitivity in robots need to look at frequency detail of tactile data, not spatial detail. Try this: Put your finger on a bumpy wall without moving it at all and see what you feel. Not much. Now move your finger across the wall. All sorts of detail jumps out. I think the human tactile system is reading changing pressure in the time domain and translating that into the spatial domain as the finger scans across the surface.
I never watch political debates because this kind of careful thinking is totally excluded by the nature of the format. The candidates have a menu of memorized statements they can make in response to any given question and pausing to think is seen as weakness or indecision.
The real question to ask is: what is the difference between a simulated universe and a real one? Heres a hint: If the simulation substrate is unconscious or naturally occurring, is it still a "simulation"? Or just a real universe with extra steps?
I think that most people would agree that a universe only counts as "simulated" if it was created by conscious beings intentionally.
In other words, proponents of simulation theories have basically reinvented god. But they've done something even more mind bogglingly self important: by posing God as a sysadmin of a celestial server farm, they have essentially written themselves into the role.
From a certain point of view, this kind of behavior from self proclaimed rationalists is pretty hilarious. It's also deeply human. But ultimately it's also very silly.
In ancient Greece the gods were fickle, horny warlords; in medieval times God was seen as an absolute monarch. And now, he is being posed as an overworked it professional. And that is absolutely fascinating for what it says about our culture and psychology. But it says nothing useful or testable about the universe.
Ok- so when is the last time you saw an auto company decide not to release its new car on the grounds that some tragic engineering error was made and the cars were not safe to drive? If the company did that do you imagine it would be good for business?
I'm trying to understand the logic here.