mukashi

Karma: 1,054

mukashi Apr 10, 2023, 8:47 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: mukashi’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
I would certainly appreciate knowing the reason for the downvotes

mukashi Apr 10, 2023, 8:39 AM
0 points
−3
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
I guess I will break my recently self-imposed rule of not talking about this anymore.
I can certainly envision a future where multiple powerful AGIs fight against each other and are used as weapons, some might be rogue AGIs and some others might be at the service of human-controlled institutions (such as Nation Estates). To put it more clearly: I have trouble imagining a future where something along these lines DOES NOT end up happening.
But, this is NOT what Eliezer is saying. Eliezer is saying:
The Alignment problem has to be solved AT THE FIRST TRY because once you create this AGI we are dead in a matter of days (maybe weeks/months, it does not matter). If someone thinks that Eliezer is saying something else, I think they are not listening properly. Eliezer can have many flaws but lack of clarity is not one of them.
In general, I think this is a textbook example of the Motte and Baley fallacy. The Motte is: AGI can be dangerous, AGI will kill people, AGI will be very powerful. The Baley is: AGI creation means the imminent destruction of all human life and therefore we need to stop now all developments.
I never discussed the Motte. I do agree with that.

mukashi Apr 10, 2023, 6:21 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: lc’s comment on: Ng and LeCun on the 6-Month Pause (Transcript)
But I think they do believe what they say. Is it maybe that they are … pointing to something else? when using the word AGI? In fact, I do not even know if there is a commonly accepted definition of AGI.

mukashi Apr 9, 2023, 2:06 PM
10 points
9
in reply to: jacob_cannell’s comment on: Ng and LeCun on the 6-Month Pause (Transcript)
I don’t see either how some people can say that AGI will take decades when GPT4 is already almost there

mukashi Apr 8, 2023, 7:34 AM
−9 points
0
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
That’s a possibility

mukashi Apr 8, 2023, 2:55 AM
−5 points
0
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
Certainly no paperclips

mukashi Apr 7, 2023, 8:45 AM
−1 points
−4
in reply to: Gerald Monroe’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
Your comment is sitting at positive karma only because I strong upvoted it. It is a good comment, but people on this site are very biased in the opposite direction. And this bias is going to drive non-doomers eventually away from this site (probably many have already left), and LW will continue descending in a spiral of non-rationality. I really wonder how people in 10 or 15 years, when we are still around in spite of powerful AGI being widespread, will rationalize that a community devoted to the development of rationality ended up being so irrational. And that was my last comment showing criticism of doomers, everytime I do it costs me a lot of karma.

mukashi Apr 6, 2023, 1:38 AM
2 points
2
in reply to: Gerald Monroe’s comment on: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Letter in Time Magazine
I can’t agree more with you. But this is a complicated position to maintain here in LW, and one that gives you a lot of negative karma

mukashi Apr 5, 2023, 3:19 AM
−8 points
−27
on: New survey: 46% of Americans are concerned about extinction from AI; 69% support a six-month pause in AI development
One of the many ways this could backfire badly is by allowing authoritarian states like China to take the lead in the development of AIs.

mukashi Apr 3, 2023, 2:54 AM
1 point
−9
in reply to: Noosphere89’s comment on: Does anyone know how to explain to yudkowsky why he needs to separate himself from the rest of ai safety if he’s going to do this
+1 here

mukashi Mar 31, 2023, 7:14 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Johannes C. Mayer’s comment on: Eliezer’s Videos
Sorry, I assumed you posted that just before the interview

mukashi Mar 31, 2023, 1:58 AM
1 point
0
on: Eliezer’s Videos
Well, it seems it is your lucky day:

mukashi Mar 22, 2023, 10:26 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: Gesild Muka’s comment on: [Linkpost] GatesNotes: The Age of AI has begun
What do you mean by true IA?

mukashi Mar 22, 2023, 5:21 AM
8 points
3
on: [Linkpost] GatesNotes: The Age of AI has begun
I am not sure how anyone would say that “[N]one of the breakthroughs of the past few months have moved us substantially closer to strong AI.” unless he hasn’t really followed the breakthroughs of the past few months or had read only bad secondhand reports

mukashi Mar 10, 2023, 12:41 AM
1 point
0
in reply to: JavierCC’s comment on: What fact that you know is true but most people aren’t ready to accept it?
I have no idea about that topic specifically. What I would suggest is: read yourself the literature. This is going to allow you to, at least, ask better questions when meeting the dentist

mukashi Mar 10, 2023, 12:39 AM
3 points
0
in reply to: baturinsky’s comment on: How bad a future do ML researchers expect?
I see. Thanks! So crazily high. I would still like to see a correlation with the karma values

mukashi Mar 9, 2023, 9:21 AM
4 points
5
in reply to: Sphinxfire’s comment on: Chomsky on ChatGPT (link)
“These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial _general_ intelligence — that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity and every other distinctively human faculty.
That day may come, but its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments”
I think that day has “already” come. Mechanical minds are already surpassing human minds in many aspects: take any subject and tell ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs on it. It might not exhibit be the most lucid and creative of the best of humans, but I am willing to bet that its writing is going to be better than most humans. So, saying that its dawn is not yet breaking seems to me extremely myopic (it’s like saying that thingy that the Wright brothers made is NOT the beginning of flying machines)
“On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations.”
We could argue that the human mind CAN (in very specific cases, under some circumstances) be capable of rational processes. But in general, human minds are not trying to “understand” the world around creating explanations. Human minds are extremely inefficient, prone to biases, get tired very easily, need to be off ¹⁄₃ of the time, etc, etc, etc.
“Here’s an example. Suppose you are holding an apple in your hand. Now you let the apple go. You observe the result and say, “The apple falls.” That is a description. A prediction might have been the statement “The apple will fall if I open my hand.” Both are valuable, and both can be correct. But an explanation is something more: It includes not only descriptions and predictions but also counterfactual conjectures like “Any such object would fall,” plus the additional clause “because of the force of gravity” or “because of the curvature of space-time” or whatever. That is a causal explanation: “The apple would not have fallen but for the force of gravity.” That is thinking.”
Anyone who has spent some time discussing with ChatGPT knows that it does have a model of the world and it is capable of causal explanation. It seems Chomsky didn’t test this himself. I can concede that it might not be a very sophisticated model of the world (do most people have a very complex model?), but again, I expect this to improve over time. I think that some of the responses of ChatGPT are very difficult to explain if it is not doing that thing that we generally call thinking
“For this reason, the predictions of machine learning systems will always be superficial and dubious. Because these programs cannot explain the rules of English syntax, for example, they may well predict, incorrectly, that “John is too stubborn to talk to” means that John is so stubborn that he will not talk to someone or other (rather than that he is too stubborn to be reasoned with). Why would a machine learning program predict something so odd? Because it might analogize the pattern it inferred from sentences such as “John ate an apple” and “John ate,” in which the latter does mean that John ate something or other. The program might well predict that because “John is too stubborn to talk to Bill” is similar to “John ate an apple,” “John is too suborn to talk to” should be similar to “John ate.” The correct explanations of language are complicated and cannot be learned just by marinating in big data.”
I don’t find the reference right now, but I remember very clearly that the next version of ChatGPT already surpasses the average humans in things like implicatures. So doubling down and saying that these systems will “always” be superficial and dubious when we “already” have models that are, better than most humans, is again, completely wrong.
I would agree with Chomsky if he were saying: it seems that “this specific chatbot” that some people made is still behind “some” humans in certain aspects of what we call intelligence. But he is claiming much more than that.

Chomsky on ChatGPT (link)

mukashiMar 9, 2023, 7:00 AM

2 points

6 comments1 min readLW link

mukashi Mar 9, 2023, 6:40 AM
11 points
9
on: How bad a future do ML researchers expect?
It would be very interesting to conduct a poll between the users of LW. I expect that it would show that this site is quite biased towards more negative outcomes than the average ML researcher in this study.
Also, it would be interesting to see how it correlates with karma, I expect a positive correlation between karma score and pessimism

mukashi Mar 8, 2023, 6:14 AM
3 points
−4
in reply to: JBlack’s comment on: Are we too confident about unaligned AGI killing off humanity?
“I don’t think anyone has a good argument for it being lower then 5%, or even 50%,”
That’s false. There are many, many good arguments. In fact, I would say that it is not only that, it is also that many of the arguments pro-doom are very bad. The only problem is that the conversation in LW on this topic is badly biased towards one camp and that’s creating a distorted image on this website. People arguing against doom tend to be downvoted way more easily than people pro-doom. I am not saying that I don’t think it is a relevant problem , something people shouldn’t work on, etc.

mukashi

Chom­sky on ChatGPT (link)

Chomsky on ChatGPT (link)