In short, we do not have the maturity to handle AI; we are playing with fire. Every person who contributes anything to AI development is responsible for the disasters that AI will bring, and all AI research should be destroyed.
In short, we do not have the maturity to handle AI; we are playing with fire. Every person who contributes anything to AI development is responsible for the disasters that AI will bring, and all AI research should be destroyed.
Being we are basically toddlers with this new technology, I would argue the breathless speed at which it’s finding its way into our lives tells me we are not being careful or thoughtful with it.
Playing with fire is in large part an ego and greed issue. Yes, it allows us to dominate, but at what cost?
I'd rather live a more balanced life than a greedy and ego driven life. I may not own the world, but I can be happy and sleep sound at night, and that matters.
Both can be equally devastating.
Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction of these...
Oh, wait a minute...
too soon
You can, and it may cause unbelievably nuisance, but not to the devastating outcome of a tactical nuke. Can you prove otherwise? Russian disinformation came close, such as the 2016 election, but that was state sponsored.
> Or, if I want to go the extra mile, I can use the latter to create motivation for the utilization of the former. e.g. I may say that a country has WMDs, and maybe try to manufacture consent for destruction of these...
You cannot. It was still state's action. Not to mention that many countries had their own intelligence that no doubt had different assessment. They weren't blind. They used WMD argument as the excuse to join the US led war.
Today is the hottest day in recorded history.
Yesterday was the hottest day in recorded history.
The day before yesterday was the hottest day in recorded history.
The day before the day before yesterday was the hottest day in recorded history.
The day before the day before the day before yesterday was the hottest day in recorded history.
Of course, I always expect downvotes on my posts here since there is a strong tendency towards loving technology here. But what I find most interesting is that there is absolutely no taking of responsibility of any technological creations.
Before you downvote, please just ask yourself the following: is it reasonable to say that all these latest AI developments have no serious risks? And in response to your reply, humanity is in quite a precarious state now, so isn't it expected that a sober analysis of it is rather pessimistic, especially with regard to hyper-advanced technologies?
I appreciate your willingness to talk about it, but to be honest it doesn't seem like it matters much what you, or any of us (not singling you out in particular), thinks about it, does it? It probably doesn't even matter who these people are who should take responsibility. This is one genie, like the internet, that probably isn't going back in the bottle anytime soon. I haven't seen any argument against "AI" that's much different than those against "the internet" and "computers" that we've at other times in the last 50 years when tech hit new mind-blowing milestones. It just keeps going regardless, right?
It's already happened. What do you do now? For decades, it's happened regardless of the robots.txt so you have to assume it's all been ingested by it all, everywhere. What now?
I’m also very wary of the copyright angle on this, because just like we don’t prohibit people from learning copyrighted materials in their brains, it feels very wrong to regulate how we train digital brains. I’m ok with forbidding the output of copies of individual existing copyrighted works, but we already have laws on the books for that. I find it downright immoral to prohibit the generation of works “in the style of”. That again reeks like the kind of draconian society I don’t want to live in.
People will always be willing to pay for human-made art, just like we pay more for handmade pots, even though machines can make them better, so I think the doomsayers who predict the end of art are flat out wrong. Easy access to mass-generated AI content could be the best thing that happened to true artists, just like chess AI that can beat every human player was the best thing that happened to the chess world. We need labeling laws that show the origin of works so people can choose whether they want artificial or human-made, but please not another extension of the copyright regime to be even more suffocating and hostile of cultural flourishing.
Just to be clear, what's being "democratised" is the fine-tuning of second-tier, inferior-performance models; or pre-training of third-tier ones. In the game of training large neural nets, the players that can afford to train the largest models with the most amount of data and compute at any given time will continue to dominate for the foreseeable future.
To make it plain, maybe in a couple of years you'll be able to train GPT-4 on your student laptop (unlikely, but let's allow it for the sake of argument). You'll still not be able to get anywhere near the performance of GPT-6 or whatever OpenAI and Google will be able to train by then.
Academics, hobbyists and smaller companies will continue to play second fiddle to large corporations as long as the dominant paradigm is more data and more compute.
Additionally, assuming the leaked details given here are accurate, there might not be a GPT-6. This entire approach of AI via language models very well could be approaching a local maximum and/or have already reached the point of diminishing returns.
If that is the case, OpenAI's moat is guaranteed to run dry. It should be telling that very few of the improvements over the past few months involve the base model, rather they are value-adds like plug-ins and hooking it up to a VM, things that are not protected by training difficulty.
There are definitely problems today with people abusing ChatGPT for malicious purposes, but given the retardedness of current LLMs I don't think we need to worry about a AI mastermind taking over anytime soon.