zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
We need to MAKE SURE that AI as a technology ISN'T controlled by a small number of powerful corporations with connections to governments.

To expound, this just seems like a power grab to me, to "lock in" the lead and keep AI controlled by a small number of corporations that can afford to license and operate the technologies. Obviously, this will create a critical nexus of control for a small number of well connected and well heeled investors and is to be avoided at all costs.

It's also deeply troubling that regulatory capture is such an issue these days as well, so putting a government entity in front of the use and existence of this technology is a double whammy — it's not simply about innovation.

The current generation of AIs are "scary" to the uninitiated because they are uncanny valley material, but beyond impersonation they don't show the novel intelligence of a GPI... yet. It seems like OpenAI/Microsoft is doing a LOT of theater to try to build a regulatory lock in on their short term technology advantage. It's a smart strategy, and I think Congress will fall for it.

But goodness gracious we need to be going in the EXACT OPPOSITE direction — open source "core inspectable" AIs that millions of people can examine and tear apart, including and ESPECIALLY the training data and processes that create them.

And if you think this isn't an issue, I wrote this post an hour or two before I managed to take it live because Comcast went out at my house, and we have no viable alternative competitors in my area. We're about to do the same thing with AI, but instead of Internet access it's future digital brains that can control all aspects of a society.

>>happyt+ZB1
This is the definition of regulatory capture. Altman should be invited to speak so that we understand the ideas in his head but anything he suggests should be categorically rejected because he’s just not in a position to be trusted. If what he suggests are good ideas then hopefully we can arrive at them in some other way with a clean chain of custody.

Although I assume if he’s speaking on AI they actually intend on considering his thoughts more seriously than I suggest.

>>noneth+DG1
There is also growing speculation that the current level of AI may have peaked in a bang for buck sense.

If this is so, and given the concrete examples of cheap derived models learning from the first movers and rapidly (and did I mention cheaply) closing the gap to this peak, the optimal self-serving corporate play is to invite regulation.

After the legislative moats go up, it is once again about who has the biggest legal team ...

>>pg_123+AP1
Counterpoint—-there is growing speculation we are just about to transition to AGI.

>>robwwi+uT1
Growing? Or have the same voices who have been saying it since the aughts suddenly been platformed.

>>Eamonn+OT1
Yes, growing. It's not that the Voices have suddenly been "platformed" - it's that the field made a bunch of rapid jumps which made the message of those Voices more timely.

Recent developments in AI only further confirm that the logic of the message is sound, and it's just the people that are afraid the conclusions. Everyone has their limit for how far to extrapolate from first principles, before giving up and believing what one would like to be true. It seems that for a lot of people in the field, AGI X-risk is now below that extrapolation limit.

>>TeMPOr+552
What's the actual new advancements? LLMs to me are great at faking AGI but are no where near actually being a workable general AI. The biggest example to me is you can correct even the newest ChatGPT and ask it to be truthful but it'll make up the same lie within the same continuous conversation. IMO the difference between being able to act truth-y and actually being truthful is a huge gap that involves the core ideas of what separates an actual AGI and a really good chatbot.

Maybe it'll turn out to be a distinction that doesn't matter but I personally still think we're a ways away from an actual AGI.

>>rtkwe+dh2
The fact that it’s a system you’d even consider to be “lying” or “truthful” is a huge advance over anything available 5 years ago.

>>canjob+uO2
That's more a convenience of language than an actual "It's Alive!". Calling them hallucinations or inaccuracies is unwieldy and the former has the same kind of implied attribution of a mind. We know for sure that's not there, my internal model for those is just a stupendously complex markov chain because to my understanding that's all LLMs are currently doing.