An actual AGI, that can think and has it's own motives and initiative is an entirely different danger to GPT-4, -5 etc which cannot. Those might post a danger in terms of fake news, or worker displacement, but they're just social issues. No rate improvement in chat GPT will make it "decide to kill all the humans" etc.
The thing that keeps us safe from computers is generally we don't let them have access to anything dangerous and when we do theres typically an evaluation of what can go wrong and how we'll prevent the computer from doing that (often in the other direction, we only program the computer to do X in Y situations). But sometimes that fails and you get the unexpected rapid acceleration of cars.
Or a giant knife switch on the wall that makes that huge clunk noise when turned to the off position, and everyone hears the sound effect of the power shutting down.
We've had computers in charge of so much for so long, but there's always a manual override to allow the operation without the computer. Manual valves to be turned (hopefully they haven't been rusted stuck so the timer on the countdown gets dramatically close to 0).
you're bonkers if you think we can't make manual overrides like this.
However, Chat-GPT is only able to interact with people because it was hooked up to the internet not because it figured out how to access the internet. It also didn't create a worm and infect the entire world, the second you leave the webpage you no longer have Chat-GPT.
The way to keep the AI from accessing it shouldn't is literally just don't hook it up to those things in the first place.
* A system like chat gpt that can do things a human cannot (find a way to kill all humans that's achievable by a small group).
* A system different to chatgpt that has its own motives and initiative.
Both need to be achieved.
> No rate improvement in chat GPT will make it "decide to kill all the humans" etc.
All I'm trying to say is that GPT-style architectures not having "agency" shouldn't be very reassuring. How intelligent they can get is a separate question and one on which I am agnostic.
Or to put it another way, I can't see how artificial intelligence could be any more dangerous than intelligence as we already know and have them.
We already know humans are dangerous. And that is humans who are conditioned to be social, and who have empathy and who rely on other humans for all sorts of things. Plus with fear of a legal system punishing them.
Now imagine a human like intelligence without empathy, that is not conditioned from childhood to be social, and that is inherently threatened by us and not reliant on us. Would you want that guy living next door?
Oh and it's 100x smarter than you.
I think all this is 100 years away, but that's the theory. Skynet doesn't have a subconscious telling it not to murder it's parents...