First, let me say that what broke me from the herd at lesswrong was specifically the calls for AI pauses. That somehow ‘rationalists’ are so certain advanced AI will kill everyone in the future (pDoom = 100%!) that they need to commit any violent act needed to stop AI from being developed.

The flaw here is that there’s 8 billion people alive right now, and we don’t actually know what the future is. There are ways better AI could help the people living now, possibly saving their lives, and essentially eliezer yudkowsky is saying “fuck em”. This could only be worth it if you actually somehow knew trillions of people were going to exist, had a low future discount rate, and so on. This seems deeply flawed, and seems to be one of the points here.

But I do think advanced AI is possible. And while it may not be a mainstream take yet, it seems like the problems current AI can’t solve, like robotics, continuous learning, module reuse - the things needed to reach a general level of capabilities and for AI to do many but not all human jobs - are near future. I can link deepmind papers with all of these, published in 2022 or 2023.

And if AI can be general and control robots, and since making robots is a task human technicians and other workers can do, this does mean a form of Singularity is possible. Maybe not the breathless utopia by Ray Kurzweil but a fuckton of robots.

So I was wondering what the people here generally think. There are “boomer” forums I know of where they also generally deny AI is possible anytime soon, claim GPT-n is a stochastic parrot, and make fun of tech bros as being hypesters who collect 300k to edit javascript and drive Teslas*.

I also have noticed that the whole rationalist schtick of “what is your probability” seems like asking for “joint probabilities”, aka smoke a joint and give a probability.

Here’s my questions:

  1. Before 2030, do you consider it more likely than not that current AI techniques will scale to human level in at least 25% of the domains that humans can do, to average human level.

  2. Do you consider it likely, before 2040, those domains will include robotics

  3. If AI systems can control robotics, do you believe a form of Singularity will happen. This means hard exponential growth of the number of robots, scaling past all industry on earth today by at least 1 order of magnitude, and off planet mining soon to follow. It does not necessarily mean anything else.

  4. Do you think that mass transition where most human jobs we have now will become replaced by AI systems before 2040 will happen

  5. Is AI system design an issue. I hate to say “alignment”, because I think that’s hopeless wankery by non software engineers, but given these will be robotic controlling advanced decision-making systems, will it require lots of methodical engineering by skilled engineers, with serious negative consequences when the work is sloppy?

*“epistemic status”: I uh do work for a tech company, my job title is machine learning engineer, my girlfriend is much younger than me and sometimes fucks other dudes, and we have 2 Teslas…

  • @selfMA
    link
    English
    1810 months ago

    What I’m trying to get at is that the practicalities of improving technology are generally skated over by aingularatians in favor of imagining technology as a magic number that you can just throw “intelligence” at to make it go up.

    this is where the singularity always lost me. like, imagine, you build an AI and it maxes out the compute in its server farm (a known and extremely easy to calculate quantity) so it decides to spread onto the internet where it’ll have infinite compute! well congrats, now the AI is extremely slow cause the actual internet isn’t magic, it’s a network where latency and reliability are gigantic issues, and there isn’t really any way for an AI to work around that. so singulatarians just handwave it away

    or like when they reach for nanomachines as a “scientific” reason why the AI would be able to exert godlike influence on the real world. but nanomachines don’t work like that at all, it’s just a lazy soft sci-fi idea that gets taken way too seriously by folks who are mediocre at best at understanding science

    • @swlabr
      link
      English
      1610 months ago

      (To be read in the voice of an elementary schooler who is a sore loser at make believe): Nuh-uh! My AGI has quantum computers, so it doesn’t get slow from the internet, and, and, and, it builds robots, with jetpacks, and those robots have tiny robots that can go in your brain and and and make your brain explode, and if you say anything mean about me or the AGI it’ll take your brain and clone it and put wires in it and make you think youre getting like, wedgied and stuff, but really youre not but you think you are because it’s really good at making you think it

      • @selfMA
        link
        English
        1410 months ago

        oh god, rationalists really were those kids and they never grew out of it

        • David GerardMA
          link
          English
          1010 months ago

          rationalism has long been a shared science fiction universe. increasingly Orion’s Arm.

          • Steve
            link
            English
            510 months ago

            Orion’s Arm

            fucken wish I didn’t google that

            • @froztbyte
              link
              English
              710 months ago

              brb gonna go make this mistake myself

                • @froztbyte
                  link
                  English
                  910 months ago

                  slight queasiness like a reverse body high, tinged with experience of time distortion (“the fuck? since 2000?! WHY”) and dissociation

                  some memory loss about the experience as well, with any recall about the details of the visions entirely vacant from my mind. it’s like seeing the machine elves but my brain didn’t want to remember

                  • Steve
                    link
                    English
                    410 months ago

                    Fuck, you have Chrichtonitis

    • Steve
      link
      English
      810 months ago

      but nanomachines don’t work like that at all, it’s just a lazy soft sci-fi idea that gets taken way too seriously by folks who are mediocre at best at understanding science

      Let’s call this Crichtonitis.

      • Steve
        link
        English
        810 months ago

        not a joke btw. literal plot of Prey which he followed with his climate change denial book State of Fear

    • @Evinceo
      link
      English
      810 months ago

      Indeed, if distributed computing worked as well as singulatarians fear everyone would be using Beowulf clusters for their workloads instead of AWS.

      • @froztbyte
        link
        English
        510 months ago

        Can I live in this world? Please? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

        It sounds so much less frustrating than this pile of mistakes with Pike’s shitty ideas at every fucking api and datamodel

    • @BrickedKeyboardOP
      link
      English
      -110 months ago

      I agree completely. This is exactly where I break with Eliezer’s model. Yes obviously an AI system that can self improve can only do so until it’s either (1) the best algorithm that can run on the server farm (2) finding a better algorithm takes more compute than is worth the investment in current compute

      That’s not a god. You do this in an AI experiment now and it might crap out at double or less the starting performance and not even be above the SOTA.

      But if robots can build robots, and the current AI progress shows a way to do it (foundation model on human tool manipulation), then…

      Genuinely asking, I don’t think it’s “religion” to suggest that a huge speedup in global GDP would be a dramatic event.

    • @BrickedKeyboardOP
      link
      English
      -110 months ago

      Serious answer not from yudnowsky: the AI doesn’t do any of that. It helps people cheat on their homework, write their code and form letters faster, and brings in revenue. AI owner uses the revenue and buys gpus. With the GPUs they make the AI better. Now it can do a bit more than before and then they buy more GPUs and theoretically this continues until the list of tasks the AI can do includes “most of the labor in a chip fab” and GPUs become cheap and then things start to get crazy.

      Same elementary school logic but I mean this is how a nuke works.

      • @selfMA
        link
        English
        1610 months ago

        wait, so the AI is just your fears about capitalism?

        Same elementary school logic but I mean this is how a nuke works.

        what. no it isn’t

      • David GerardMA
        link
        English
        1010 months ago

        Same elementary school logic but I mean this is how a nuke works.

        this is just stupid

      • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        your imaginary nukes explode forever. in reality, nuke stops exploding when it either runs out of plutonium or is dispersed too much. the energy of nuke is not infinite, it’s large, but most importantly it’s all contained in the device from the beginning

        your example also fails at the step of “getting more money forever”, when VC funding runs out or gets dispersed too much entire charade grinds to halt (because SV startups are shielded from commercial failure by that VC money). that state is sometimes called “AI winter”

        • @BrickedKeyboardOP
          link
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Did this happen with Amazon? The VC money is a catalyst. It’s advancing money for a share of future revenues. If AI companies can establish a genuine business that collects revenue from customers they can reinvest some of that money into improving the model and so on.

          OpenAI specifically seems to have needed about 5 months to go to 1 billion USD annual revenue, or the way tech companies are valued, it’s already worth more than 10 billion intrinsic value.

          If they can’t - if the AI models remain too stupid to pay for, then obviously there will be another AI winter.

          https://fortune.com/2023/08/30/chatgpt-creator-openai-earnings-80-million-a-month-1-billion-annual-revenue-540-million-loss-sam-altman/

          • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            from what i understand openai runs all of their products at loss, so when vc money runs out things could get interesting

            and with recession coming, there could be less vc money to begin with