Give them a semi human sounding puppet and they think skynet is coming tomorrow.
If we learned anything from the past few months is how gullible people are, wishful thinking is a hell of a drug
What I feel has changed, and what drives a lot of the fear and anxiety you see, is a sudden perception of possibility, of accessibility.
A lot of us (read: people) are implicit dualists, even if we say otherwise. It seems to be a sticky bias in the human mind (see: the vanishing problem of AI). Indeed, you can see a whole lot of dualism in this thread!
And even if you don't believe that LLMs themselves are "intelligent" (by whatever metric you define that to be...), you can still experience an exposing and unseating of some of the foundations of that dualism.
LLMs may not be a destination, but their unprecedented capabilities open up the potential for a road to something much more humanlike in ways that perhaps did not feel possible before, or at least not possible any time soon.
They are powerful enough to change the priors of one's internal understanding of what can be done and how quickly. Which is an uncomfortable process for those of us experiencing it.
Absolutely spot on. I am not a dualist at all and I've been surprised to see how many people with deep-seated dualist intuition this has revealed, even if they publicly claim not to.
I view it as embarrassing? It's like believing in fairies or something.
I don't think that trying to regulate every detail of every industry is stifling and counter-productive. But the current scenario is closer to the opposite end of the spectrum, with our society acting as a greedy algorithm in pursuit of short-term profits. I'm perfectly in favor of taking a measure-twice-cut-once approach to something that has as much potential for overhauling society as we know it as AI does. And I absolutely do not trust the free market to be capable of moderating itself in regards to these risks.
No one yet knows how this is going to go, coping might turn into "See! I knew all along!" if progress fizzles out. But right now the threat is very real and we're seeing the full spectrum of "humans under threat" behavior. Very similar to the early pandemic when you could find smart people with any take you wanted.
> Some of the dangers of AI chatbots were “quite scary”, he told the BBC, warning they could become more intelligent than humans and could be exploited by “bad actors”. “It’s able to produce lots of text automatically so you can get lots of very effective spambots. It will allow authoritarian leaders to manipulate their electorates, things like that.”
You can do bad things with it but people who believe we're on the brink of singularity, that we're all going to lose our jobs to chatgpt and that world destruction is coming are on hard drugs.
Geoff Hinton, Stuart Russell, Jürgen Schmidhuber and Demis Hassabis all talk about something singularity-like as fairly near term, and all have concerns with ruin, though not all think it is the most likely outcome.
That's the backprop guy, top AI textbook guy, co-inventor of LSTMs (only thing that worked well for sequences before transformers)/highwaynets-resnets/arguably GANs, and the founder of DeepMind.
Schmidhuber (for context, he was talking near term, next few decades):
> All attempts at making sure there will be only provably friendly AIs seem doomed. Once somebody posts the recipe for practically feasible self-improving Goedel machines or AIs in form of code into which one can plug arbitrary utility functions, many users will equip such AIs with many different goals, often at least partially conflicting with those of humans. The laws of physics and the availability of physical resources will eventually determine which utility functions will help their AIs more than others to multiply and become dominant in competition with AIs driven by different utility functions. Which values are "good"? The survivors will define this in hindsight, since only survivors promote their values.
Hassasbis:
> We are approaching an absolutely critical moment in human history. That might sound a bit grand, but I really don't think that is overstating where we are. I think it could be an incredible moment, but it's also a risky moment in human history. My advice would be I think we should not "move fast and break things." [...] Depending on how powerful the technology is, you know it may not be possible to fix that afterwards.
Hinton:
> Well, here’s a subgoal that almost always helps in biology: get more energy. So the first thing that could happen is these robots are going to say, ‘Let’s get more power. Let’s reroute all the electricity to my chips.’ Another great subgoal would be to make more copies of yourself. Does that sound good?
Russell:
“Intelligence really means the power to shape the world in your interests, and if you create systems that are more intelligent than humans either individually or collectively then you’re creating entities that are more powerful than us,” said Russell at the lecture organized by the CITRIS Research Exchange and Berkeley AI Research Lab. “How do we retain power over entities more powerful than us, forever?”
“If we pursue [our current approach], then we will eventually lose control over the machines. But, we can take a different route that actually leads to AI systems that are beneficial to humans,” said Russell. “We could, in fact, have a better civilization.”
Should we be concerned about networked, hypersensing AI with bad code? Yes.
Is that an existential threat? Not so long as we remember that there are off switches.
Should we be concerned about kafkaesqe hellscapes of spam and bad UX? Yes.
Is that an existential threat? Sort of, if we ceded all authority to an algorithm without a human in the loop with the power to turn it off.
There is a theme here.
Google spent years doing nothing much with its AI because its employees (like Hinton) got themselves locked in an elitist hard-left purity spiral in which they convinced each other that if plebby ordinary non-Googlers could use AI they would do terrible things, like draw pictures of non-diverse people. That's why they never launched Imagen and left the whole generative art space to OpenAI, Stability and Midjourney.
Now the tech finally leaked out of their ivory tower and AI progress is no longer where he was at, but Hinton finds himself at retirement age and no longer feeling much like hard-core product development. What to do? Lucky lucky, he lives in a world where the legacy media laps up any academic with a doomsday story. So he quits and starts enjoying the life of a celebrity public intellectual, being praised as a man of superior foresight and care for the world to those awful hoi polloi shipping products and irresponsibly not voting for Biden (see the last sentence of his Wired interview). If nothing happens and the boy cried wolf then nobody will mind, it'll all be forgotten. If there's any way what happens can be twisted into interpreting reality as AI being bad though, he's suddenly the man of the hour with Presidents and Prime Ministers queuing up to ask him what to do.
It's all really quite pathetic. Academic credentials are worth nothing with respect to such claims and Hinton hasn't yet managed to articulate how, exactly, AI doom is supposed to happen. But our society doesn't penalize wrongness when it comes from such types, not even a tiny bit, so it's a cost-free move for him.
To the extent we can get anything like that at all presently, it's going to be people whose competences combine and generalize to cover a complex situation, partially without precedent.
Personally I don't really see that we'll do much better in that regard than a highly intelligent and free-thinking biological psychologist with experience of successfully steering the international ML research community through creating the present technology, and with input from contacts at the forefront of the research field and information overview from Google.
Not even Hinton knows for sure whats going to happen of course, but if you're suggesting his statements are to be discounted because he's not a member of some sort of credentialed trade that are the ones equipped to tell us the future on this matter, I'd sure like to who they supposedly are.
What to do? Why, obviously lets talk about the risks of AGI.
I mean LLM's are an impressive piece of work but the global reaction is basically more a reflection of an unmoored system that floats above and below reality but somehow can't re-establish contact.
