zlacker

>>staran+(OP)
At the end of the day, we still don't know what exactly happened and probably, never will. However, it seems clear there was a rift between Rapid Commercialization (Team Sam) and Upholding the Original Principles (Team Helen/Ilya). I think the tensions were brewing for quite a while, as it's evident from an article written even before GPT-3 [1].

> Over time, it has allowed a fierce competitiveness and mounting pressure for ever more funding to erode its founding ideals of transparency, openness, and collaboration

Team Helen acted in panic, but they believed they would win since they were upholding the principles the org was founded on. But they never had a chance. I think only a minority of the general public truly cares about AI Safety, the rest are happy seeing ChatGPT helping with their homework. I know it's easy to ridicule the sheer stupidity the board acted with (and justifiably so), but take a moment to think of the other side. If you truly believed that Superhuman AI was near, and it could act with malice, won't you try to slow things down a bit?

Honestly, I myself can't take the threat seriously. But, I do want to understand it more deeply than before. Maybe, it isn't without substance as I thought it to be. Hopefully, there won't be a day when Team Helen gets to say, "This is exactly what we wanted to prevent."

[1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/17/844721/ai-openai...

>>shubha+B7
Both sides of the rift in fact care a great deal about AI Safety. Sam himself helped draft the OpenAI charter and structure its governance which focuses on AI Safety and benefits to humanity. The main reason of the disagreement is the approach they deem best:

* Sam and Greg appear to believe OpenAI should move toward AGI as fast as possible because the longer they wait, the more likely it would lead to the proliferation of powerful AGI systems due to GPU overhang. Why? With more computational power at one's dispense, it's easier to find an algorithm, even a suboptimal one, to train an AGI.

As a glimpse on how an AI can be harmful, this paper explores how LLMs can be used to aid in Large-Scale Biological Attacks https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2977-1.html?

What if dozens other groups become armed with means to perform such an attack like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

We know that there're quite a few malicious human groups who would use any means necessary to destroy another group, even at a serious cost to themselves. So the widespread availability of unmonitored AGI would be quite troublesome.

* Helen and Ilya might believe it's better to slow down AGI development until we find technical means to deeply align an AGI with humanity first. This July, OpenAI started the Superalignment team with Ilya as a co-lead:

https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment

But no one anywhere found a good technique to ensure alignment yet and it appears OpenAI's newest internal model has a significant capability leap, which could have led Ilya to make the decision he did. (Sam revealed during the APEC Summit that he observed the advance just a couple of weeks ago and it was only the fourth time he saw that kind of leap.)

>>nopins+wg
Honest question, but in your example above of Sam and Greg racing towards AGI as fast as possible in order to head off proliferation, what's the end goal when getting there? Short of capture the entire worlds economy with an ASI, thus preventing anyone else from developing one, I don't see how this works. Just because OpenAI (or whoever) wins the initial race, it doesn't seem obvious to me that all development on other AGIs stops.