Recent comments in /f/singularity

Kinexity t1_j9hzcak wrote

Reply to comment by IluvBsissa in MIT researchers makes self-drive car AI significantly more accurate: “Liquid” neural nets, based on a worm’s nervous system, can transform their underlying algorithms on the fly, giving them unprecedented speed and adaptability. by IluvBsissa

Probably another evolution over what we already have or a dead end. Really significant things take off if they are useful.

Honestly, while lvl 5 autonomy would be pretty cool tech wise, it's a solution to a problem caused by cars. It's merely slightly closes the performance gap between them and mixed solution of public transportation and micromobility while not giving us never before seen efficiency. It's like making a coal steam locmotive into electric steam locomotive - it's better than before but direct electric drive beats it anyways.

3

j4nds4 t1_j9hxcbb wrote

Reply to comment by spryes in What are your thoughts on Eliezer Yudkowsky? by DonOfTheDarkNight

I'm not on board with everything he says, but to consider his probable retorts:

>It seems that he confidently believes we will all die once AGI/ASI is reached, but I don't see why *all* humans dying is more likely than only *some*.

Why would it opt to kill only some knowing that that would increase the probability of humans trying to turn it off or change its function? Concretely eliminating the risk requires concretely eliminating the only other sentient and conscious species that might be motivated to hamper it.

>Why is it guaranteed it would cause catastrophic destruction rather than only minor destruction, especially since something can't be infinitely powerful.

The idea is that a smart enough AGI (aka smarter than us at everything) won't cause destruction unless it's for a specific reason, and preventing risk of reduction of its reward probability (like us turning it off) would motivate it to eliminate us. And it doesn't need to be infinitely powerful, just better than just at everything relevant.

>For example, an analogy is that ASI::humans will be equivalent to humans::ants, and yet while we don't care if we kill ants to achieve our goals, we don't specifically go out of our way to kill them. Many ants have died due to us, but a ton are still alive. I think this is the most likely scenario once ASI becomes uncontrollable.

That's because there's no consideration of ants making a coordinated and conscious effort to disable us.

>I also think it will leave our planet/solar system and pursue its goals elsewhere as Earth may not be adequate for it to continue, effectively just leaving us behind, and that humans as material won't be as effective as some other material it wants to use in space somewhere.

If it's sufficiently smart and sufficiently capable and sufficiently calculated then it would presume that leaving us alive increases the risk of another sentient and conscious entity challenging its growth and reward potential.

It all comes down to the reward function - all ML programs are built with goals and rewards, and we need to be sure that, once it is exceedingly capable and calculating and generalized, its reward is sufficiently defined such that humans will never be seen as a threat to that reward and that actions taken toward that reward will never directly or indirectly affect us in a way that we would disapprove of. All of that has to be figured out before it reaches the point of superior intelligence; once it's at that point, there is otherwise no hope of ever having a say in its actions. We can't predict everything it could do because we are by definition dumber than it and will be by an increasingly unfathomable margin. We can't predict every loophole, every side effect, every glitch, every escape route it could conceive of or exploit; therefore to know with adequate confidence that we have all our ducks in a row before it takes off is literally impossible. The best we can do is continue to try to figure out and decrease the odds of those cracks ever forming or being problematic; and given how easily ML programs (most recently chatGPT and Bing Chat) engage in the kind of behavior their creators are actively trying to avoid, we are unambiguously very, very bad at that.

9

Midnight-Movie t1_j9hv0t7 wrote

Reply to comment by Practical-Mix-4332 in A German AI startup just might have a GPT-4 competitor this year. It is 300 billion parameters model by Dr_Singularity

>Is anything about gpt4 known? It seems like just a bunch of rumors and not even a release date

I work with someone who has Beta access to GPT-4. He won't tell me much other than it's mind-blowing & that software development will never be the same. He confirms the rumors that it indeed can write an entire piece of software.

6

Superschlenz t1_j9hu5t6 wrote

Reply to The dreamers of dreams by [deleted]

Hippocampus memorizes surprises during the day while cortex recalls and learns them during REM sleep. So that there is room again in hippocampus for tomorrow's surprises.

1