In a letter to the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, Sanders writes that almost every day brings a new story about how these companies are losing...
Which is why tech CEOs love to promote it. They know it’ll never happen.
We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals.
“Alignment” is almost entirely a myth cooked up by AI companies who want to make their word generators sound scarier than they are. There’s no such thing: the next word generator generates next word. It’s unpredictable because it’s built that way. “Hallucination” and “going rogue”, all poor terms and pathetic attempts to fearmonger and humanize, are identical functions to “working” and “aligning”.
The technology… isn’t going anywhere
The “it’s just inevitable” cliche rears its ugly head again.
Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did “catch on” was idiotic.
Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.
AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)
The point of the “its not going away” comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.
As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn’t going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially “make it go away” are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.
“It’s not going away” is not equivalent to “there’s nothing we can do to solve the problems”; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.
Alignment is a real thing, though it can be a less than apt description. Mostly the goals you write out and the goals you want to happen not being the same thing. You can also have alignment issues where the dataset doesn’t match the real data in some way and the classifications break down. (I am not an AI defender I am very anti-AI)
Your opinion is borne from lack of knowledge about the topic you’re trying to discuss, similar to an anti-vaxxer attempting to discuss the dangers of mRNA vaccines.
Fix your lack of knowledge or don’t; that’s your call, but if you care about discussing this topic somewhat intelligently, you should probably put in some effort to understand it.
I meant no insult, truly. You just don’t have the minimum required knowledge to discuss this intelligently. There’s no shame in that; no one can know everything.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
You apparently still internalize LLMs as fancy Markov chains, which tells me that you don’t have a working grasp to discuss the topic, even at the laymen level we’re at.
These hacking events may be “PR Stunts”, but the “stunt” part would be leaving a known vulnerability as a path to the wider Internet instead of making it physically impossible to break out, not the hacking of other websites. No one credible is disputing that these models are capable of hacking.
Uh-huh. You compared me to an antivaxxer , implying that people who disagree with you don’t believe in science or technology - the same reason you felt the need to throw in the “inevitability” cliche. Which I do not buy, and somebody claiming to understand the technology should never repeat.
Later, you say anyone who disagrees with you just feels “desperate” and “threatened.” You’re really pulling everything from the “I am rational and you are neurotic” playbook aren’t you.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
It’s all the same song and dance. Dario Amodei screams “hold me back!” because he loves pretending his product is Great and Powerful.
Why do these developers never talk about real harms like the environmental damage they cause? How about the psychosis they are liable to fall into?
It’s pretty obvious they’re just doing marketing, knowingly or not. And these are smart people who should know better.
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
You’re not making coherent arguments; it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer. Maybe take a step back and explain to me what your stance actually is? Bonus points if you learn just a layman’s level understanding of the technology before you post your response.
Since your first post, I’ve been challenging you to justify your thought-terminating cliches, but instead all you do is string together insults like
it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer.
and slightly less overt ones. You should retract all the personal attacks or at least retract your insincere “apology.”
And for your vague sourceless claims about “experts” need to actually provide sources. Tell me the cult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky isn’t one of your favored “experts.”
Which is why tech CEOs love to promote it. They know it’ll never happen.
“Alignment” is almost entirely a myth cooked up by AI companies who want to make their word generators sound scarier than they are. There’s no such thing: the next word generator generates next word. It’s unpredictable because it’s built that way. “Hallucination” and “going rogue”, all poor terms and pathetic attempts to fearmonger and humanize, are identical functions to “working” and “aligning”.
The “it’s just inevitable” cliche rears its ugly head again.
That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren’t going anywhere, crime isn’t going anywhere, etc.
Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did “catch on” was idiotic.
Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.
AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)
“AI is never going away” neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.
The point of the “its not going away” comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.
As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn’t going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially “make it go away” are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.
“It’s not going away” is not equivalent to “there’s nothing we can do to solve the problems”; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.
I agree?
Alignment is a real thing, though it can be a less than apt description. Mostly the goals you write out and the goals you want to happen not being the same thing. You can also have alignment issues where the dataset doesn’t match the real data in some way and the classifications break down. (I am not an AI defender I am very anti-AI)
Your opinion is borne from lack of knowledge about the topic you’re trying to discuss, similar to an anti-vaxxer attempting to discuss the dangers of mRNA vaccines.
Fix your lack of knowledge or don’t; that’s your call, but if you care about discussing this topic somewhat intelligently, you should probably put in some effort to understand it.
Wow. What an awful person.
I said several things so how about you actually address them, instead of resorting to an insult and vaguely telling me to “do my research”?
Do you deny this latest wave of companies doing the exact same routine is a PR stunt, or that companies badly want regulatory capture, or what?
I meant no insult, truly. You just don’t have the minimum required knowledge to discuss this intelligently. There’s no shame in that; no one can know everything.
I can’t know the motives of anyone, but I can say it’s at least plausible that the people working on the frontier models want an excuse to slow down that doesn’t give an advantage to other countries and companies, and also doesn’t put them in the crosshairs of investors and board members.
You apparently still internalize LLMs as fancy Markov chains, which tells me that you don’t have a working grasp to discuss the topic, even at the laymen level we’re at.
These hacking events may be “PR Stunts”, but the “stunt” part would be leaving a known vulnerability as a path to the wider Internet instead of making it physically impossible to break out, not the hacking of other websites. No one credible is disputing that these models are capable of hacking.
Uh-huh. You compared me to an antivaxxer , implying that people who disagree with you don’t believe in science or technology - the same reason you felt the need to throw in the “inevitability” cliche. Which I do not buy, and somebody claiming to understand the technology should never repeat.
Later, you say anyone who disagrees with you just feels “desperate” and “threatened.” You’re really pulling everything from the “I am rational and you are neurotic” playbook aren’t you.
It’s all the same song and dance. Dario Amodei screams “hold me back!” because he loves pretending his product is Great and Powerful.
Why do these developers never talk about real harms like the environmental damage they cause? How about the psychosis they are liable to fall into?
It’s pretty obvious they’re just doing marketing, knowingly or not. And these are smart people who should know better.
@XLE I reported the little troll.
Computer science is still science. You distrust the experts in the field based on what? Something you saw on social media? Certainly not your own expertise, that much is clear.
Don’t move the goalposts. No one is claiming that “AI” doesn’t have downsides. That’s different than your original claim that they didn’t do what they appear to do.
I don’t suppose you happen to be in a field threatened by AI? In my anecdotal experience, the people that desperately want to pretend AI is all a scam are actually worried about the opposite, and their job. (A real concern I’m in no way trying to minimize.)
Removed by mod
Ignoring the random personal attacks, I’m not on Mastodon like you are, I’m on Lemmy. We don’t have followers, that I am aware of.
I can’t tell if you’re reading what I’m writing. I mention CEOs twice and you assert I’m not listening to “The Experts”.
You mean climate damage and psychosis?
Zero of the “experts” in your strained theory about looking for excuses to “pause” AI ever talk about them. It’s almost like they don’t want to imply their product is unworthy of all the hype, doomerism and fearmongering.
I do not consider the CEOs as experts, no.
You’re not making coherent arguments; it really is like discussing vaccines with an antivaxxer. Maybe take a step back and explain to me what your stance actually is? Bonus points if you learn just a layman’s level understanding of the technology before you post your response.
Since your first post, I’ve been challenging you to justify your thought-terminating cliches, but instead all you do is string together insults like
and slightly less overt ones. You should retract all the personal attacks or at least retract your insincere “apology.”
And for your vague sourceless claims about “experts” need to actually provide sources. Tell me the cult leader Eliezer Yudkowsky isn’t one of your favored “experts.”