šš» https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Future of Life, a non-profit organization, published a letter in which SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, philanthropist Andrew Yang, and about a thousand other artificial intelligence researchers called for an "immediate suspension" of the training of AI systems "more powerful than GPT-4"
The letter, issued by the non-profit Future of Life Institute called for a pause on advanced AI development until shared safety protocols for such designs were developed, implemented and audited by independent experts
The letter also detailed potential risks to society and civilization by human-competitive AI systems in the form of economic and political disruptions, and called on developers to work with policymakers on governance and regulatory authorities
i have to agree.
When it says "i am not biased" and then answers with bias, as we have seen so many demonstrations of, it's time to shut it down. It's going to be used to filter the internet even worse than it is.
Lies have no place in the information age, even AI lies.
I donāt
Artificial ignorance not intelligence.
Trust us
yeah it all depends on who is programming it!
More eyes on not bad. Way better than what we've got right now.
When you say more eyes, does that mean you and I get a say, or is that limited to a closed special interest group.
I get what youāre saying but I donāt think you get what theyāre saying. You know theyāre not going to open it up to the world. We donāt even know who owns chatgpt, so thereās no way of knowing what the real goal is. Are they really afraid of artificial ignorance (letās face it, thatās what chatgpt is) or is this just a way to prevent any competition.
Personally I think any attempts at trying to recreate intelligence/consciousness is just another way of playing god to these sick fucks, but thatās just me.
The fact of the matter is, whether we aren't in the know directly, more eyes on means it's harder to hide malicious behavior.
Whether we can do something about it is of course entirely separate.
As for AI, playing God, etc. that's a take, sure.
But it's also at its core just automation, a step forward in that. I'm sure some people want to do it to play God, but to others it's to improve the quality of life of people.
AI can diagnose more accurately than doctors, and source the proper treatment via parsing millions of cases in an instant as one example.
It can sequence and potentially resolve cancer much faster and more successfully than a doctor as well.
There is a lot of good for humanity in its potential, but there is also a lot of bad.
If we could have a direct say, that'd be great. But in the absence of that, I'd rather have a larger group of people be a part of it, because the more people who are part of something, the more chances and aide or an intern or an O.M.G. gets a peek, and that's more beneficial than a secret group of unnamed people.
AI can only do what you program/train it to do. Unless that ai is talking about parasites in your example there is no real benefit, just an illusion of one.
Look at how many people are easily misled by politicians and doctors. Donāt think you want to add ai to that list.
This isnāt something I would leave up to chance. The sad part is how much it imitates covid. How many good doctors spoke up about the vaccine? How did that work out for them.
Only way it works is with full transparency, and I donāt think I have to explain why thatās a bad idea in of itself.
We should be working to increase real intelligence before we even worry about the artificial kind.
PEBKAC
Problem exists between keyboard and chair....
The answer to so many of lifeās common problems!
The name is a lie. OpenAI is not open source. And I don't trust Sam Altman, especially when he took an open source non profit and turned it into a closed source for profit company.
How can we expect AI to serve humanity when it is clearly lying to us?
Why wouldn't terrorists or terroristic nations just ignore such regulation and proceed full steam while we "pause" for policy makers?
Yep, just like guns. They want them, they don't want us having them. In a digital war, I'd say possession of AI falls under the 2nd amendment.
Just like cloning, only the good guys will play by the rules.
I get that folks are concerned about AI. Movies have always shown us that AI becomes absolute in tyrannical power, however I don't think we have enough REAL data to draw any accurate conclusions. I honestly believe that most of the nonsense and idiocy would be called out by real AI. Facts are actually quite simple and nothing understands that better than a computer program. I'm sure that the computer code would have to be written properly to confine it to moral boundaries. A closed system with access to historical data could be utilized to test the limitations and problems with artificial intelligence. It certainly seems like a simple solution to me.
#4 on list: Yuval Harari
No Skynet? ā¹ļø
This wouldn't stop Skynet.. just slow it down a bit. Maybe. Wouldn't surprise me if SOMEHOW AI systems concluded that humans are a parasite on this planet and maintaining humanity at 500,000,000 people is the ideal solution. What a coincidence that AI would conclude that and execute the plan... indeed.
So I guess you could say, the computer came to the most common of IT solutionsā¦. PEBKAC lul
REEEEEE IT'S SCARY JUST LIKE THAT MOVIE
Too late. Stopping AI research now is akin to giving up your guns when everyone already knows the secret to gunpowder. Good people who foolishly give up their guns are at the mercy of the bad people who don't. Likewise with AI technology; AI is a powerful force multiplier for psychological/memetic warfare, and each day it only gets easier and easier to independently develop. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back; to give up on AI now means surrendering the mental arms race to those who do not give it up.
With things like Replika being a thing, I can see putting a pause on that is a good time to have a self assessment of ourselves with the rise of AI introduction into society.
I always wondered what the realistic possibility of an AI taking over would be but I keep coming to the point of, wouldnāt the AI be limited by its hardware?
So let the Fact-Checkers manage and correct the AI to speak their truth? Sounds like a brilliant idea.