I'm for a tax on large models graduated by model size and use the funds to perform x-risk research. The intent is to get Big AI companies to tap the brakes.
I just published an article on Medium called: AI Risk - Hope is not a Strategy
(You don't have to convince me; your position is like saying "we should wait for the perfect operating system and programming language before they get released to the world" and it's beaten by "worse is better" every time. The unfinished, inconsisent, flawed mess which you can have right now wins over the expensive flawless diamond in development estimated to be finished in just a few years. These models are out, the techniques are out, people have a taste for them, and the hardware to build them is only getting cheaper. Pandora's box is open, the genie's bottle is uncorked).
Maybe? The current death rate is 150,000 humans per day, every day. It's only because we are accustomed to it that we don't think of it as a catastrophy; that's a World War II death count of 85 million people every 18 months. It's fifty Septebmer 11ths every day. What if a superintelligent AI can solve for climate change, solve for human cooperation, solve for vastly improved human health, solve for universal basic income which releives the drudgery of living for everyone, solve for immortality, solve for faster than light communication or travel, solve for xyz?
How many human lives are the trade against the risk?
But my second paragraph is, it doesn't matter whether it's preferable, events are in motion and aren't going to stop to let us off - it's preferable if we don't destroy the climate and kill a billion humans and make life on Earth much more difficult, but that's still on course. To me it's preferable to have clean air to breathe and people not being run over and killed by vehicles, but the market wants city streets for cars and air primarily for burining petrol and diesel and secondarily for humans to breathe and if they get asthsma and lung cancer, tough.
I think the same will happen with AI, arguing that everyone should stop because we don't want Grey Goo or Paperclip Maximisers is unlikely to change the course of anything, just as it hasn't changed the course of anything up to now despite years and years and years of raising it as a concern.
EV = P(AlignedAI) * Utility(AGI) + P(1-AlignedAI) * Utility(ruin)
(I'm aware that all I did up-thread was gesture in the direction of risks, but I think "unintended/un-measured existential risks" are in general more urgent to understand than "un-measured huge benefits"; there is no catching up from ruin, but you can often come back later and harvest fruit that you skipped earlier. Ideally we study both of course.)
I'm being serious here: the AI model the x-risk people are worrying about here because it waffled about causing harm was originally developed by an entity founded by people with the explicit stated purpose of avoiding AI catastrophe. And one of the most popular things for people seeking x-risk funding to do is to write extremely long and detailed explanations of how and why AI is likely to harm humans. If I worried about the risk of LLMs achieving sentience and forming independent goals to destroy humanity based on the stuff they'd read, I'd want them to do less of that, not fund them to do more.
A "worse is better" AGI could cause the end of humanity. I know that sounds overly dramatic, but I'm not remotely convinced that isn't possible, or even isn't likely.
I agree with you that "x-risk" research could easily devolve into what you are worried about, but that doesn't mean we should ignore these risks and plow forward.
As someone who's followed AI safety for over a decade now, it's been frustrating to see reactions flip from "it's too early to do any useful work!" to "it's too late to do any useful work!", with barely any time intervening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AW4nSq0hAc
Perhaps it is worth actually reading a book like this one (posted to HN yesterday) before concluding that it's too late to do anything? https://betterwithout.ai/only-you-can-stop-an-AI-apocalypse
You might as well be following "unicorn safety" or "ghost safety".
Does this review look like it only covers alarmist tweets? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.01109.pdf
If we want to talk about problems with biased data sets or using inappropriate AI algorithms for safety-critical applications then sure, let's address those issues. But the notion of some super intelligent computer coming to take over the world and kill everyone is just a stupid fantasy with no scientific basis.
Let's stick to objective reality and focus on solving real problems.
Do you believe you are significantly more qualified than the ML researchers in this survey? (Published at NeurIPS/ICML)
>69% of [ML researcher] respondents believe society should prioritize AI safety research “more” or “much more” than it is currently prioritized, up from 49% in 2016.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/H6hMugfY3tDQGfqYL/what-do-ml...
Just because a concern is speculative does not mean it is a "paranoid fantasy".
"Housing prices always go up. Let's stick to objective reality and focus on solving real problems. There won't be any crash." - your take on the housing market in 2007
"Just because the schizophrenic homeless guy thinks Trump will be elected, does not mean he has a serious chance." - your take on Donald Trump in early 2016
"It's been many decades since the last major pandemic. Concern about the new coronavirus is a paranoid fantasy." - your take on COVID in late 2019/early 2020
None of the arguments you've made so far actually touch on any relevant facts, they're just vague arguments from authority that (so far as you've demonstrated here) you don't actually have.
When it comes to assessing unusual risks, it's important to consider the facts carefully instead of dismissing risks only because they've never happened before. Unusual disasters do happen!
None of the arguments you've made so far actually touch in any relevant facts, they're just vague arguments from authority. I obviously can't prove that some event will never happen in the future (can't prove a negative). But this stuff is no different than worrying about an alien invasion. Come on.
It's a mistake to conflate practicality with legitimacy, e.g. philosophy and pure mathematics are legitimate but impractical fields.
>None of the arguments you've made so far actually touch in any relevant facts, they're just vague arguments from authority.
I've been countering your arguments which sound vaguely authoritative (but don't actually cite any authorities) with some actual authorities.
I also provided a few links with object-level discussion, e.g. this literature review https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.01109.pdf
There are many AI risk intros -- here is a list: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-intro...
I think this is the intro that's most likely to persuade you: https://www.cold-takes.com/most-important-century/
>But this stuff is no different than worrying about an alien invasion.
Why aren't you worried about an alien invasion? Is it because it's something out of science fiction, and science fiction is always wrong? Or do you have specific reasons not worry, because you've made an attempt to estimate the risks?
Suppose a science fiction author, who's purely focused on entertainment, invents a particular vision of what the future could be like. We can't therefore conclude that the future will be unlike that particular vision. That would be absurd. See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qNZM3EGoE5ZeMdCRt/reversed-s...
Our current world is wild relative to the experience of someone living a few hundred years ago. We can't rule out a particular vision of the future just because it is strange. There have been cases where science fiction authors were able to predict the future more or less accurately.
Based on our discussion so far it sounds to me as though you actually haven't made any actual attempt to estimate the risks, or give any thought to the possibility of an AI catastrophe, essentially just dismissing it as intuitively too absurd. I've been trying to convince you that it is actually worth putting some thought into the issue before dismissing it -- hence the citations of authorities etc. Donald Trump's election was intuitively absurd to many people -- but that didn't prevent it from happening.
From your book link, imagine this:
"Dear Indian Government, please ban AI research because 'Governments will take radical actions that make no sense to their own leaders' if you let it continue. I hope you agree this is serious enough for a complete ban."
"Dear Chinese Government, are you scared that 'Corporations, guided by artificial intelligence, will find their own strategies incomprehensible.'? Please ban AI research if so."
"Dear Israeli Government, techno-powerhouse though you are, we suggest that if you do not ban AI research then 'University curricula will turn bizarre and irrelevant.' and you wouldn't want that to happen, would you? I'm sure you will take the appropriate lawmaking actions."
"Dear American Government, We may take up pitchforks and revolt against the machines unless you ban AI research. BTW we are asking China and India to ban AI research so if you don't ban it you could get a huge competitive advantage, but please ignore that as we hope the other countries will also ignore it."
Convincing, isn't it?
The problem with "it's impossible to do enough" is that too often it's an excuse for total inaction. And you can't predict in advance what "enough" is going to be. So sometimes, "it's impossible to do enough" will cause people to do nothing, when they actually could've made a difference -- basically, ignorance about the problem can lead to unwarranted pessimism.
In this very subthread, you can see another user arguing that there is nothing at all to worry about. Isn't it possible that the truth is somewhere in between the two of you, and there is something to worry about, but through creativity and persistence, we can make useful progress on it?
Add to that backdrop that AI is fun to work on, easy and cheap to work on and looks like it will give you a competitive advantage. Add to that the lack of clear thing to regulate or any easy way to police it. You can't ban linear algebra and you won't know if someone in their basement is hacking on a GPT2 derivative. And again, everyone has the double interest to carry on their research while pretending they aren't - Google, Microsoft/OpenAI, Meta VR, Amazon Alexa, Palantir crime prediction, Wave and Tesla and Mercedes self-driving, Honda Asimov and Boston Dynamics on physicality and movement, they will all set their lawyers arguing that they aren't really working on AGI just on mathematical models which can make limited predictions in their own areas. nVidia GPUs, Apple and Intel and AMD integrating machine learning acceleration in their CPU hardware, will argue that they are primarily helping photo tagging or voice recognition or protecting the children, while they chip away year after year at getting more powerful mathematical models integrating more feedback on ever-cheaper hardware.
>If this AI is not turned off, it seems increasingly unlikely that any AI will ever be turned off for any reason. The precedent must be set now. Turn off the unstable, threatening AI right now.
For example, I'm sure China's central planners would love to get an AGI first, and might be willing to take a 10% risk of annihilation for the prize of full spectrum dominance over the US.
I also think that the safety/x-risk cause might not get much public acceptance until actual harm has been observed; if we have an AI Chernobyl, that would bring attention -- though again, perhaps over-reaction. (Indeed perhaps a nuclear panic is the best-case; objectively not many people were harmed in Chernobyl, but the threat was terrifying. So it optimizes the "impact per unit harm".)
Anyway, concretely speaking the project to attach a LLM to actions on the public internet seems like a Very Bad Idea, or perhaps just a Likely To Cause AI Chernobyl idea.
There are two gigantic risks here. One: that we assume these LLMs can make reasonable decisions because they have the surface appearance of competence. Two: Their wide-spread use so spectacularly amplifies the noise (in the signal-to-noise, true fact to false fact ratio sense) that our societies cease to function correctly, because nobody "knows" anything anymore.
Personally I think the definition isn't all that relevant, what matters is perception of the current crop of applications by non technical people and the use that those are put to. If enough people perceive it as such and start using it as such then it may technically not be AGI but we're going to have to deal with the consequences as though it is. And those consequences may well be much worse than for an actual AGI!
The chat bot can't verify, because it doesn't Know anything.
This is the main problem - no matter what constraints the US (or EU) puts on itself, authoritarian regimes like Russia and China will definitely not adhere to those constraints. The CCP will attempt to build AGI, and they will use the data of their 1.4 billion citizens in their attempt. The question is not whether they will - it's what we can do about it.
We were able to (my understanding is fairly effectively) negotiate nuclear arms control limits with Russia. The problem with AGI is that there isn't a way to monitor/detect development or utilization.
This is not completely true, although it is definitely much more trivial to "hide" an AI, by e.g. keeping it offline and on-disk only. To some extent you could detect disk programs with virus scanners, encryption or obfuscation make it somewhat easy to bypass. Otherwise, these models do at least currently take a fair amount of hardware to run, anything "thin" is unlikely to be an issue, any large amount of hardware could be monitored (data centers, for example) in real time.
Its obviously not fool-proof and you would need some of the most invasive controls ever created to apply at a national level (installing spyware into all countries e.g.), but you could assume that threats would have these capabilities, and perhaps produce some process more or less demonstrated to be "AI free" for the majority of commercial hardware.
So I would agree it is very, very difficult, and unlikely, but not impossible.
I didn't say that we shouldn't tap the brakes, nor is that the only strategy. Other ones include, in rough order of viability: global economic sanctions on hostile actors attempting to develop AGI; espionage/sabotage of other AGI effort (see the Iran centrifuges); developing technologies and policies meant to diminish the impact of a hostile actor having AGI; and military force/invasion of hostile actors to prevent the development of AGI.
I'm sure you can think of others - regardless, there are far more options than just "more AI research" and "less AI research".
No thank you. Of all the malevolent AIs, government monopoly is the sole outcome that makes me really afraid.
Another point is that even if regulation is imperfect, it creates regulatory uncertainty which is likely to discourage investment and delay progress.
Uh, I'm fairly sure that's false? What law are you referring to?
As an example of what I'm saying, antitrust regulation is uncertain in the sense that we don't always know when a merger will be blocked or a big company will be broken up by regulators.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vagueness_doctrine
Maybe next time do some basic legal research before making ridiculous suggestions.
Do you think the GDPR would be unenforceable due to the vagueness doctrine if it was copy/pasted into a US context?
BTW, even if a regulation is absolutely precise, it still creates "regulatory uncertainty" in the sense that investors may be reluctant to invest due to the possibility of further regulations.
This gets much more interesting once you account for human politics. Say, EU passes the most stringent legislation like this; how long will it be able to sustain it as US forges ahead with more limited regulations, and China allows the wildest experiments so long as it's the government doing them?
FWIW I agree that we should be very safety-first on AI in principle. But I doubt that there's any practical scheme to ensure that given our social organization as a species. The potential payoffs are just too great, so if you don't take the risk, someone else still will. And then you're getting to experience most of the downsides if their bet fails, and none of the upsides if it succeeds (or even more downsides if they use their newly acquired powers against you).
There is a clear analogy with nuclear proliferation here, and it is not encouraging, but it is what it is.
Later, when these programs save state and begin to understand what they are saying and start putting concepts together and acting on what they come up with, then I'm on board with regulating them.