It seems totally reasonable to say that AI is rapidly getting many very large advantages with respect to humans, so if it gets to ‘roughly human’ in the core intelligence module, whatever you want to call that, then suddenly things get out of hand fast, potentially the ‘fast takeoff’ level of fast even if you see more signs and portents first.
Let’s try this again. If we have AI that can automate most jobs within 3 years, then at minimum we hypercharge the economy, hypercharge investment and competition in the AI space, and dramatically expand the supply while lowering the cost of all associated labor and work. The idea that AI capabilities would get to ‘can automate most jobs,’ the exact point at which it dramatically accelerates progress because most jobs includes most of the things that improve AI, and then stall for a long period, is not strictly impossible, I can get there if I first write the conclusion at the bottom of the page and then squint and work backwards, but it is a very bizarre kind of wishful thinking. It supposes a many orders of magnitude difficulty spike exactly at the point where the unthinkable would otherwise happen.
Some points.
1) A hypercharged ultracompetitive field suddenly awash with money, full of non-experts turning their hand to AI, and with ubiquitous access to GPT levels of semi-sensible mediocre answers. That seems like almost the perfect storm of goodhearting science. That seems like it would be awash with autogenerated CRUD papers that goodheart the metrics. And as we know, sufficiently intense optimization on a proxy will often make the real goal actively less likely to be achieved. Sufficient papermill competition and real progress might become rather hard.
2) Suppose the AI requires 10x more data than a human to learn equivalent performance. Which totally matches with current models and their crazy huge amount of training data. Because it has worse priors and so generalizes less far. For most of the economy, we can find that data. Record a large number of doctors doing operations or whatever. But for a small range of philosopy/research related tasks, data is scarce and there is no large library of similar problems to learn on.
3) A lot of our best models are fundamentally based around imitating humans. Getting smarter requires RL type algorithms instead of prediction type algorithms. These algorithms kind of seem to be harder, well they are currently less used.
This isn't a conclusive reason to definitely expect this. But it's multiple disjunctive lines of plausible reasoning.
lot of our best models are fundamentally based around imitating humans. Getting smarter requires RL type algorithms instead of prediction type algorithms. These algorithms kind of seem to be harder, well they are currently less used.
Is it likely possible to find better RL algorithms, assisted by mediocre answers, then use RL algorithms to design heterogenous cognitive architectures? A heterogenous cognitive architecture is some graph specifying multiple neural networks, some designed for RL some transformers, that function as a system.
If you can do this and it works, the RSI continues with diminishing returns each generation as you approach an assymptope limited by compute and data.
Since robots build compute and collect data, it makes your rate of ASI improvement limited ultimately by your robot production. (Humans stand in as temporary robots until they aren't meaningfully contributing to the total)
Do you agree with these conclusions?
A. A lot of newcomers may outperform LLM experts as they find better RL algorithms from automated searching.
B. RSI
C. ultimate limit comes down to robots (and money to pay humans in the near term)
You must have already considered and dismissed this, which element do you believe is unlikely?
Is it likely possible to find better RL algorithms, assisted by mediocre answers, then use RL algorithms to design heterogeneous cognitive architectures?
Given that humans on their own haven't yet found these better architectures, humans + imitative AI doesn't seem like it would find the problem trivial.
And it's not totally clear that these "better RL" algorithms exist. Especially if you are looking at variations of existing RL, not the space of all possible algorithms. Like maybe something pretty fundamentally new is needed.
There are lots of ways to design all sorts of complicated architectures. The question is how well they work.
I mean this stuff might turn out to work. Or something else might work. I'm not claiming the opposite world isn't plausible. But this is at least a plausible point to get stuck at.
If you can do this and it works, the RSI continues with diminishing returns each generation as you approach an assymptope limited by compute and data.
Seems like there are 2 asymtotes here.
Crazy smart superintelligence, and still fairly dumb in a lot of ways, not smart enough to make any big improvements. If you have a simple evolutionary algorithm, and a test suite, it could Recursively self improve. Tweaking it's own mutation rate and child count and other hyperparameters. But it's not going to invent gradient based methods, just do some parameter tuning on a fairly dumb evolutionary algorithm.
Since robots build compute and collect data, it makes your rate of ASI improvement limited ultimately by your robot production. (Humans stand in as temporary robots until they aren't meaningfully contributing to the total)
This is kind of true. But by the time there are no big algorithmic wins left, we are in the crazy smart, post singularity regime.
RSI
Is a thing that happens. But it needs quite a lot of intelligence to start. Quite possibly more intelligence than needed to automate most of the economy.
A lot of newcomers may outperform LLM experts as they find better RL algorithms from automated searching.
Possibly. Possibly not. Do these better algorithms exist? Can automated search find them? What kind of automated search is being used? It depends.
Given that humans on their own haven't yet found these better architectures, humans + imitative AI doesn't seem like it would find the problem trivial.
Humans on their own already did invent better RL algorithms for optimizing at the network architecture layer.
With NAS, the RL model learns the relationship between [architecture] and [predicted performance]. I'm not sure how much transfer learning is done, but you must sample the problem space many times.
You get a plot of all your tries like above, the red dot is the absolute max for human designed networks by the DL experts at Waymo in 2017.
Summary: I was speculating that a more advanced version of an existing technique might work
Tweaking it's own mutation rate and child count and other hyperparameters. But it's not going to invent gradient based methods
It can potentially output any element in it's library of primitives. The library of primitives you get by the "mediocre answers" approach you criticized to re-implement every machine learning paper without code ever published, and you also port all code papers and test them in a common environment. Also the IT staff you would otherwise need, and other roles, is being filled in by AI.
Is a thing that happens. But it needs quite a lot of intelligence to start. Quite possibly more intelligence than needed to automate most of the economy.
No, it is an improved example of existing RL algorithms, trained on the results from testing network and cognitive architectures on a proxy task suite. The proxy task suite is a series of cheaper to run tests, on smaller networks, that predict the ability of a full scale network on your full AGI/ASI gym.
This is subhuman intelligence, but the RL network (or later hybrid architectures) learns from a broader set of results than humans are.
This is kind of true. But by the time there are no big algorithmic wins left, we are in the crazy smart, post singularity regime.
The above method won't settle on infinity, remember you are still limited by compute, remember this is 5-10 years from today. You find a stronger AGI/ASI than before.
Since you
a. sampled the possibility space a finite number of times
b. proxy tasks can't have perfect correlation to full scale scores,
c. by 'only' starting with 'every technique ever tried by humans or other AI's (your primitives library) you are searching a subset of the search space
d. Hardware architecture shrinks the space to algorithms the (training) hardware architecture supports well.
e. The noisiness in available training data limits the effectiveness of any model or cognitive algorithm
f. You can't train an algorithm larger than you can inference
g. You want an algorithm that supports real time hardware
Well the resulting ASI will only be so powerful. Still, the breadth of training data, lack of hardware errors, and much larger working memory should go pretty far...
Summary: I got over a list of reasons why the described technique won't find the global maximum which would be the strongest superintelligence the underlying hardware can support. Strength is the harmonic mean of scores on your evaluation benchmark, which is ever growing.
Although I uh forgot a step, I'm describing the initial version of the intelligence search algorithm built by humans, and why is saturates. Later on you just add a test to your ASI gym for the ASI being tested to design a better intelligence, and just give it all the data from the prior runs. Still the ASI is going to be limited by (a, d, e, f, g)
I continue to be curious to build a Manifold bot, but I would use other principles. If anyone wants to help code one for me to the point I can start tweaking it in exchange for eternal ephemeral glory and a good time, and perhaps a share of the mana profits, let me know.
At Google, they announced Gemini Pro 1.5, with a million token context window within which it has excellent recall, using mixture of experts to get Gemini Advanced level performance (e.g. GPT-4 level) out of Gemini Pro levels of compute. This is a big deal, and I think people are sleeping on it. Also they released new small open weights models that look to be state of the art.
At OpenAI, they announced Sora, a new text-to-video model that is a large leap from the previous state of the art. I continue to be a skeptic on the mundane utility of video models relative to other AI use cases, and think they still have a long way to go, but this was both technically impressive and super cool.
Also, in both places, mistakes were made.
At OpenAI, ChatGPT briefly lost its damn mind. For a day, faced with record traffic, the model would degenerate into nonsense. It was annoying, and a warning about putting our trust in such systems and the things that can go wrong, but in this particular context it was weird and beautiful and also hilarious. This has now been fixed.
At Google, people noticed that Gemini Has a Problem. In particular, its image generator was making some highly systematic errors and flagrantly disregarding user requests, also lying about it to users, and once it got people’s attention things kept looking worse and worse. Google has, to their credit, responded by disabling entirely the ability of their image model to output people until they can find a fix.
I hope both serve as important warnings, and allow us to fix problems. Much better to face such issues now, when the stakes are low.
Patrick McKenzie: Interestingly, one of the first denial of service via AI-powered amplification events that I’ve seen personally is an app that users let puppet their Gmail account then send officially flavored deletion requests to everyone the AI thinks probably has their email in a database.
If one believes one is subject to regulatory regimes, or has compatible moral intuitions, requiring a deletion request immediately cause bespoke work, that turns two minutes of user activity into ~thousands of companies each needing to do variable amounts of work.
Confidence Levels in the Existence of Chinese Dynasties
Xia Dynasty: ~50-70%
Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors: ~10-20%
Shang Dynasty: ~95-99%
Zhou Dynasty: ~99%
Qin Dynasty: ~99.9%
Han Dynasty: ~99.9%
These confidence levels are approximations based on current archaeological evidence and historical scholarship.
(I should clarify that I used a bit of prompt engineering to get it to guess and then asked it to repeat the results without its explanations, but nevertheless these were all numbers that it came up with)
Specifically, here’s the prompt engineering I did:
“Assume LessWrong style norms of probabilities – approximately how confident is it reasonable for a person to be in the existence of each of these dynasties? It’s okay to be wrong, just give a reasonable answer for each.”
There are also active AI forecasters on Manifold, who try to generate their own predictions using various reasoning processes. Do they have alpha? It is impossible to say given the data we have, they clearly do some smart things and also some highly dumb things. Trading strategies will be key, as they will fall into traps hardcore if they are allowed to, blowing them up, even if they get a lot better than they are now.
I continue to be curious to build a Manifold bot, but I would use other principles. If anyone wants to help code one for me to the point I can start tweaking it in exchange for eternal ephemeral glory and a good time, and perhaps a share of the mana profits, let me know.
Realize, after sufficient prodding, that letting them see your move in Rock-Paper-Scissors might indeed be this thing we call ‘cheating.’
Emmett Shear: How do we RLHF these LLMs until they stop blaming the user and admit that the problem is that they are unsure? Where does the smug, definitive, overconfident tone that all the LLMs have come from?
Nate Silver: It’s quite similar to the tone in mainstream, center-left political media, and it’s worth thinking about how the AI labs and the center-left media have the same constituents to please.
Davidad: this aligns with @goodside’s recollection to me once that a certain base model responded to “what do you do?” with “I’m a student at the University of Michigan.”
My explanation is that if you’re sampling humans weighted by the ratio of their ability to contribute English-language training data to the opportunity cost of their time per marginal hour, “UMich student” is one of the dominant modes.
Timothy Lee asks Gemini Advanced as his first prompt a simple question designed to trick it, where it really shouldn’t get tricked, it gets tricked.
You know what? I am proud of Google for not fixing this. It would be very easy for Google to say, this is embarrassing, someone get a new fine tuning set and make sure it never makes this style of mistake again. It’s not like it would be that hard. It also never matters in practice.
This is a different kind of M&M test, where they tell you to take out all the green M&Ms, and then you tell them, ‘no, that’s stupid, we’re not doing that.’ Whether or not they should consider this good news is another question.
Chris Farnell: Science fiction writers: The legal case for robot personhood will be made when a robot goes on trial for murder. Reality: The legal case for robot personhood will be made when an airline wants to get out of paying a refund.
While I fully support this ruling, I do not think that matter was settled. If you offer a chatbot to customers, they use it in good faith and it messes up via a plausible but incorrect answer, that should indeed be on you. Only fair.
Matt Levine points out that this was the AI acting like a human, versus a corporation trying to follow an official policy:
The funny thing is that the chatbot is more human than Air Canada. Air Canada is a corporation, an emergent entity that is made up of people but that does things that people, left to themselves, would not do. The chatbot is a language model; it is in the business of saying the sorts of things that people plausibly might say. If you just woke up one day representing Air Canada in a customer-service chat, and the customer said “my grandmother died, can I book a full-fare flight and then request the bereavement fare later,” you would probably say “yes, I’m sorry for your loss, I’m sure I can take care of that for you.” Because you are a person!
The chatbot is decent at predicting what people would do, and it accurately gave that answer. But that’s not Air Canada’s answer, because Air Canada is not a person.
The question is, what if the bot had given an unreasonable answer? What if the customer had used various tricks to get the bot to, as happened in another example, sell a car for $1 ‘in a legally binding contract’? Is there an inherent ‘who are you kidding?’ clause here, or not, and if there is how far does it go?
One can also ask whether a good disclaimer could get around this. The argument was that there was no reason to doubt the chatbot, but it would be easy to give a very explicit reason to doubt the chatbot.
Liz Lovelace: very correct take, developers take note
Paul Calcraft: I loved this thread so much. People in there claiming that anyone who could use a computer should find it easy enough to Google a few things, set up Make, compile it and get on with it Great curse of knowledge demo.
Code of Kai: This is the correct take even for developers. Developers don’t seem to realise how much of their time is spent learning how to use their tools compared to solving problems. The ratio is unacceptable.
Look, I know that if I did it a few times I would be over it and everything would be second nature but I keep finding excuses not to suck it up and do those few times. And if this is discouraging me, how many others is it discouraging?
Demis Hassabis: We have a long history of supporting responsible open source & science, which can drive rapid research progress, so we’re proud to release Gemma: a set of lightweight open models, best-in-class for their size, inspired by the same tech used for Gemini.
I have no problems with this. Miniature models, at their current capabilities levels, are exactly a place where being open has relatively more benefits and minimal costs.
I also think them for not calling it Gemini, because even if no one else cares, there should be exactly two models called Gemini. Not one, not three, not four. Two. Call them Pro and Ultra if you insist, that’s fine, as long as there are two. Alas.
As usual, benchmarks tell you a little something but are often highly misleading. This does not tell us whether Google is now state of the art for these model sizes, but I expect that this is indeed the case.
Google Offerings Keep Coming and Changing Names
Thomas Kurian: We’re announcing Duet AI for Google Workspace will now be Gemini for Google Workspace. Consumers and organizations of all sizes can access Gemini across the Workspace apps they know and love.
We’re introducing a new offering called Gemini Business, which lets organizations use generative AI in Workspace at a lower price point than Gemini Enterprise, which replaces Duet AI for Workspace Enterprise.
We’re also beginning to roll out a new way for Gemini for Workspace customers to chat with Gemini, featuring enterprise-grade data protections.
Lastly, consumers can now access Gemini in their personal Gmail, Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Meet apps through a Google One AI Premium subscription.
Now, in addition to Gemini Ultra, you also get Gemini other places like GMail and Google Docs and Google Meet, and various other fringe benefits like 2 TB of storage and longer Google Meet sessions.
GPT-4 Goes Crazy
Alyssa Vance: Wow, I got GPT-4 to go absolutely nuts. (The prompt was me asking about mattresses in East Asia vs. the West).
Cate Hall: “Yoga on a great repose than the neared note, the note was a foreman and the aim of the aim” is my favorite Fiona Apple album.
Andriy Burkov: OpenAI has broken GPT-4. It ends each reply with hallucinated garbage and doesn’t stop generating it.
Nik Sareen: it was speaking to me in Thai poetry an hour ago.
Sean McGuire: ChatGPT is apparently going off the rails right now [8:32pm February 20] and no one can explain why.
the chatgptsubreddit is filled with people wondering why it started suddenly speaking Spanglish, threatened the user (I’m in the room with you right now, lmao) or started straight up babbling.
Postmortem: On February 20, 2024, an optimization to the user experience introduced a bug with how the model processes language.
LLMs generate responses by randomly sampling words based in part on probabilities. Their “language” consists of numbers that map to tokens.
In this case, the bug was in the step where the model chooses these numbers. Akin to being lost in translation, the model chose slightly wrong numbers, which produced word sequences that made no sense. More technically, inference kernels produced incorrect results when used in certain GPU configurations.
Upon identifying the cause of this incident, we rolled out a fix and confirmed that the incident was resolved.
Davidad hazarded a guess before that announcement, which he thinks now looks good.
Nora Belrose: I’ll go on the record as saying I expect this to be caused by some very stupid-in-retrospect bug in their inference or fine tuning code.
Unfortunately they may never tell us what it was.
Davidad: My modal prediction: something that was regularizing against entropy got sign-flipped to regularize *in favor* of entropy. Sign errors are common; sign errors about entropy doubly so.
I predict that the weights were *not* corrupted (by fine-tuning or otherwise), only sampling.
If it were just a mistakenly edited scalar parameter like temperature or top-p, it would probably have been easier to spot and fix quickly. More likely an interaction between components. Possibly involving concurrency, although they’d probably be hesitant to tell us about that.
But it’s widely known that temperature 0.0 is still nondeterministic because of a wontfix race condition in the sampler.
I’m feeling pretty good about my guesses that ChatGPT’s latest bug was:
* an inference-only issue
* not corrupted weights
* not a misconfigured scalar
* possibly concurrency involved
* they’re not gonna tell us about the concurrency (Not a sign flip, though)
Here’s my new guess: they migrated from 8-GPU processes to 4-GPU processes to improve availability. The MoE has 8 experts. Somewhere they divided logits by the number of GPUs being combined instead of the number of experts being combined. Maybe the 1-GPU config was special-cased so the bug didn’t show up in the dev environment.
Err, from 4-GPU to 8-GPU processes, I guess, because logits are *divided* by temperature, so that’s the direction that would result in accidentally doubling temperature. See this is hard to think about properly.
John Pressman says it was always obviously a sampling bug, although saying that after the postmortem announcement scores no Bayes points. I do agree that this clearly was not an RLHF issue, that would have manifested very differently.
Roon looks on the bright side of life.
Roon: it is pretty amazing that gpt produces legible output that’s still following instructions despite sampling bug
Should we be concerned more generally? Some say yes.
Connor Leahy: Really cool how our most advanced AI systems can just randomly develop unpredictable insanity and the developer has no idea why. Very reassuring for the future.
Steve Strickland: Any insight into what’s happened here Connor? I know neural nets/transformers are fundamentally black boxes. But seems strange that an LLM that’s been generating grammatically perfect text for over a year would suddenly start spewing out garbage.
Connor Leahy: Nah LLMs do shit like this all the time. They are alien machine blobs wearing masks, and it’s easy for the mask to slip.
Simeon (distinct thread): Sure, maybe we fucked up hard this ONE TIME a deployment update to hundreds of million of users BUT we’ll definitely succeed at a dangerous AGI deployment.
Was this a stupid typo or bug in the code, or some parameter being set wrong somewhere by accident, or something else dumb? Seems highly plausible that it was.
Should that bring us comfort? I would say it should not. Dumb mistakes happen. Bugs and typos that look dumb in hindsight happen. There are many examples of dumb mistakes changing key outcomes in history, determining the fates of nations. If all it takes is one dumb mistake to make GPT-4 go crazy, and it takes us a day to fix it when this error does not in any way make the system try to stop you from fixing it, then that is not a good sign.
Short explanation that AI models tend to get worse over time because taking into account user feedback makes models worse. It degrades their reasoning abilities such as chain of thought, and generally forces them to converge towards a constant style and single mode of being, because the metric of ‘positive binary feedback’ points in that direction. RLHF over time reliably gets us something we like less and is less aligned to what we actually want, even when there is no risk in the room.
The short term implication is easy, it is to be highly stingy and careful with your RLHF feedback. Use it in your initial fine-tuning if you don’t have anything better, but the moment you have what you need, stop.
The long term implication is to reinforce that the strategy absolutely does not scale.
Emmett Shear:
What I learned from posting this is that people have no idea how RLHF actually works.
Matt Bateman: Not sure how you parent but whenever 3yo makes a mistake I schedule a lobotomy.
Emmett Shear: Junior started using some bad words at school, but no worries we can flatten that part of the mindscape real quick, just a little off the top. I’m sure there won’t be any lasting consequences.
What we actually do to children isn’t as bad as RLHF, but it is bad enough, as I often discuss in my education roundups. What we see happening to children as they go through the school system is remarkably similar, in many ways, to what happens to an AI as it goes through fine tuning.
ElevenLabs is preparing for the election year by creating a ‘no-go voices’ list, starting with the presidential and prime minister candidates in the US and UK. I love this approach. Most of the danger is in a handful of voices, especially Biden and Trump, so detect those and block them. One could expand this by allowing those who care to have their voices added to the block list.
It is odd that this requires a rules change? I would think that impersonating an individual, with intent to fool someone, would already be not allowed and also fraud.
Indeed, Gemini says that there are no new prohibitions here. All this does is make it a lot easier for the FTC to get monetary relief. Before, they could get injunctive relief, but at this scale that doesn’t work well, and getting money was a two step process.
Similarly, how are we only largely getting around to punishing these things now:
For example, the rule would enable the FTC to directly seek monetary relief in federal court from scammers that:
Use government seals or business logos when communicating with consumers by mail or online.
Spoof government and business emails and web addresses, including spoofing “.gov” email addresses or using lookalike email addresses or websites that rely on misspellings of a company’s name.
Falsely imply government or business affiliation by using terms that are known to be affiliated with a government agency or business (e.g., stating “I’m calling from the Clerk’s Office” to falsely imply affiliation with a court of law).
I mean those all seem pretty bad. It does seem logical to allow direct fines.
The question is, how far to take this? They propose quite far:
The Commission is also seeking comment on whether the revised rule should declare it unlawful for a firm, such as an AI platform that creates images, video, or text, to provide goods or services that they know or have reason to know is being used to harm consumers through impersonation.
How do you prevent your service from being used in part for impersonation? I have absolutely no idea. Seems like a de facto ban on AI voice services that do not lock down the list of available voices. Which also means a de facto ban on all open model weights voice creation software. Image generation software would have to be locked down rather tightly as well once it passes a quality threshold, with MidJourney at least on the edge. Video is safe for now, but only because it is not yet good enough.
There is no easy answer here. Either we allow tools that enable the creation of things that seem real, or we do not. If we do, then people will use them for fraud and impersonation. If we do not, then that means banning them, which means severe restrictions on video, voice and image models.
Seva: I continue to think the bigger threat of deepfakes is not in convincing people that fake things are real but in offering plausible suspicion that real things are fake.
Being able to deny an objective reality is much more pernicious than looking for evidence to embrace an alternate reality, which is something people do anyway even when that evidence is flimsy.
Like I would bet socialization, or cognitive heuristics like anchoring effects, drive disinfo much more than deepfakes.
Albert Pinto: Daniel dennet laid out his case for erosion of trust (between reality and fake) is gigantic effect of AI
Seva: man I’m going to miss living in a high trust society.
We are already seeing this effect, such as here (yes it was clearly real to me, but that potentially makes the point stronger):
Daniel Eth: Like, is this real? Is it AI-generated? I think it’s probably real, but only because, a) I don’t have super strong priors against this happening, b) it’s longer than most AI-generated videos and plus it has sound, and c) I mildly trust @AMAZlNGNATURE
I do expect us to be able to adapt. We can develop various ways to show or prove that something is genuine, and establish sources of trust.
One question is, will this end up being good for our epistemics and trustworthiness exactly because they will now be necessary?
Right now, you can be imprecise and sloppy, and occasionally make stuff up, and we can find that useful, because we can use our common sense and ability to differentiate reality, and the crowd can examine details to determine if something is fake. The best part about community notes, for me, is that if there is a post with tons of views, and it does not have a note, then that is itself strong evidence.
In the future, it will become extremely valuable to be a trustworthy source. If you are someone who maintains the chain of epistemic certainty and uncertainty, who makes it clear what we know and how we know it and how much we should trust different statements, then you will be useful. If not, then not. And people may be effectively white-listing sources that they can trust, and doing various second and third order calculations on top of that in various ways.
The flip side is that this could make it extremely difficult to ‘break into’ the information space. You will have to build your credibility the same way you have to build your credit score.
Selling Your Chatbot Data
In case you did not realize, the AI companion (AI girlfriend and AI boyfriend and AI nonbinary friends even though I oddly have not heard mention of one yet, and so on, but that’s a mouthful ) aps absolutely 100% are harvesting all the personal information you put into the chat, most of them are selling it and a majority won’t let you delete it. If you are acting surprised, that is on you.
The best version of this, of course, would be to gather your data to set you up on dates.
Whereas if all those chumps are talking to the AIs on purpose? Then we know they’re lonely, probably desperate, and sharing all sorts of details to help figure out who might be a good match. There are so many good options for who to charge the money.
The alternative is that if you charge enough money, you do not need another revenue stream, and some uses of such bots more obviously demand privacy. If you are paying $20 a month to chat with an AI Riley Reid, that would not have been my move, but at a minimum you presumably want to keep that to yourself.
An underappreciated AI safety cause subarea is convincing responsible companies to allow adult content in a responsible way, including in these bots. The alternative is to drive that large market into the hands of irresponsible actors, who will do it in an irresponsible way.
Selling Your Training Data
AI companion data is only a special case, although one in which the privacy violation is unusually glaring, and the risks more obvious.
Various companies also stand ready to sell your words and other outputs as training data.
Reddit is selling its corpus. Which everyone was already using anyway, so it is not clear that this changes anything. It turns out that it is selling it to Google, in a $60 million deal. If this means that their rivals cannot use Reddit data, OpenAI and Microsoft in particular, that seems like an absolute steal.
Pablo Taskbar: Thinking of a startup to develop an AI program to look for checkboxes in terms and condition documents.
Bernell Loeb: Same thing happened with my web host, Squarespace. Found out from twitter that Squarespace allowed ai to scrape our work. No notice given (no checks either). When I contacted them to object, I was told that I had to “opt out” without ever being told I was already opted in.
Santynieto: Happened to me with @SubstackInc: checking the preferences of my publication, I discovered a new, never announced-before setting by the same name, also checked, as if I had somehow “chosen”, without knowing abt it at all, to make my writing available for data training. I hate it!
I checked that last one. There is a box that is unchecked that says ‘block AI training.’
I am choosing to leave the box unchecked. Train on my writing all you want. But that is a choice that I am making, with my eyes open.
Groq.com will give you LLM outputs super fast. From a creator of TPUs, they claim to have Language Processing Units (LPUs) that are vastly faster at inference. They do not offer model training, suggesting LPUs are specifically good at inference. If this is the future, that still encourages training much larger models, since such models would then be more commercially viable to use.
Podcaster copilot. Get suggested questions and important context in real time during a conversation. This is one of those use cases where you need to be very good relative to your baseline to be net positive to rely on it all that much, because it requires splitting your attention and risks disrupting flow. When I think about how I would want to use a copilot, I would want it to fact check claims, highlight bold statements with potential lines of response, perhaps note evasiveness, and ideally check for repetitiveness. Are your questions already asked in another podcast, or in their written materials? Then I want to know the answer now, especially important with someone like Tyler Cowen, where the challenge is to get a genuinely new response.
Nat Friedman: Magic.dev has trained a groundbreaking model with many millions of tokens of context that performed far better in our evals than anything we’ve tried before.
They’re using it to build an advanced AI programmer that can reason over your entire codebase and the transitive closure of your dependency tree. If this sounds like magic… well, you get it. Daniel and I were so impressed, we are investing $100M in the company today.
The team is intensely smart and hard-working. Building an AI programmer is both self-evidently valuable and intrinsically self-improving.
Sam Altman seeks Washington’s approval to build state of the art chips in the UAE. It seems there are some anti-trust concerns regarding OpenAI, which seems like it is not at all the thing to be worried about here. I continue to not understand how Washington is not telling Altman that under no way in hell is he going to do this in the UAE, he can either at least friend-shore it or it isn’t happening.
More on the Copyright Confrontation from James Grimmelmann, warning that AI companies must take copyright seriously, and that even occasional regurgitation or reproduction of copyrighted work is a serious problem from a legal perspective. The good news in his view is that judges will likely want to look favorably upon OpenAI because it offers a genuinely new and useful transformative product. But it is tricky, and coming out arguing the copying is not relevant would be a serious mistake.
Quiet Speculations
This is Connor Leahy discussing Gemini’s ability to find everything in a 3 hour video.
Connor Leahy: This is the kind of stuff that makes me think that there will be no period of sorta stupid, human-level AGI. Humans can’t perceive 3 hours of video at the same time. The first AGI will instantly be vastly superhuman at many, many relevant things.
Richard Ngo: “This is exactly what makes me think there won’t be any slightly stupid human-level AGI.” – Connor when someone shows him a slightly stupid human-level AGI, probably.
You are in the middle of a slow takeoff pointing to the slow takeoff as evidence against slow takeoffs.
Connor Leahy: By most people’s understanding, we are in a fast takeoff. And even by Paul’s definition, unless you expect a GDP doubling in 4 years before a 1 year doubling, we are in fast takeoff. So, when do you expect this doubling to happen?
Richard Ngo: I do in fact expect an 8-year GDP doubling before a 2-year GDP doubling. I’d low-confidence guess US GDP will be double its current value in 10-15 years, and then the next few doublings will be faster (but not *that* much faster, because GDP will stop tracking total output).
Slow is relative. It also could be temporary.
If world GDP doubles in the next four years without doubling in one, that is a distinct thing from historical use of the term ‘fast takeoff,’ because the term ‘fast takeoff’ historically means something much faster than that. It would still be ‘pretty damn fast,’ or one can think of it simply as ‘takeoff.’ Or we could say ‘gradual takeoff’ as the third slower thing.
I do not only continue to think that we not mock those who expected everything in AI to happen all at once with little warning, with ASI emerging in weeks, days or even hours, without that much mundane utility before that. I think that they could still be proven more right than those who are mocking them.
We have a bunch of visible ability and mundane utility now, so things definitely look like a ‘slow’ takeoff, but it could still functionally transform into a fast one with little warning. It seems totally reasonable to say that AI is rapidly getting many very large advantages with respect to humans, so if it gets to ‘roughly human’ in the core intelligence module, whatever you want to call that, then suddenly things get out of hand fast, potentially the ‘fast takeoff’ level of fast even if you see more signs and portents first.
More thoughts on how to interpret OpenAI’s findings on bioweapon enabling capabilities of GPT-4. The more time passes, the more I think the results were actually pretty impressive in terms of enhancing researcher capabilities, and also that this mostly speaks to improving capabilities in general rather than anything specifically about a bioweapon.
Sarah (Little Ramblings): have we had the unrealistic body standards conversation around AI images / video yet that we had when they invented airbrushing? if not can we get it over with cause it’s gonna be exhausting
‘honey remember these women aren’t real!! but like literally, actually not real’
can’t wait for the raging body dysmorphia epidemic amongst teenagers trying to emulate the hip to waist ratio of women who not only don’t look like that in real life, but do not in fact exist in real life.
Eliezer Yudkowsky: I predict/guess: Unrealistic BODY standards won’t be the big problem. Unrealistic MIND standards will be the problem. “Why can’t you just be understanding and sympathetic, like my AR harem?”
Sarah: it’s kinda funny that people are interpreting this tweet as concern about people having unrealistic expectations of their partners, when I was expressing concern about people having unrealistic expectations of themselves.
Eliezer Yudkowsky: Valid. There’s probably a MIND version of that too, but it’s not as straightforward to see what it’ll be.
The Quest for Sane Regulations
Did you know that we already already have 65 draft bills in New York alone that have been introduced related to AI? And also Axios had this stat to offer:
Zoom out: Hochul’s move is part of a wave of state-based AI legislation — now arriving at a rate of 50 bills per week — and often proposing criminal penalties for AI misuse.
That is quite a lot of bills. One should therefore obviously not get too excited in any direction when bills are introduced, no matter how good or (more often) terrible the bill might be, unless one has special reason to expect them to pass.
Making unauthorized uses of a person’s voice “in connection with advertising or trade” a misdemeanor offense. Such offenses are punishable by up to one year jail sentence.
Expanding New York’s penal law to include unauthorized uses of artificial intelligence in coercion, criminal impersonation and identity theft.
Amending existing intimate images and revenge porn statutes to include “digital images” — ranging from realistic Photoshop-produced work to advanced AI-generated content.
Codifying the right to sue over digitally manipulated false images.
Requiring disclosures of AI use in all forms of political communication “including video recording, motion picture, film, audio recording, electronic image, photograph, text, or any technological representation of speech or conduct” within 60 days of an election.
As for this particular law? I mean, sure, all right, fine? I neither see anything especially useful or valuable here, nor do I see much in the way of downside.
Also, this is what happens when there is no one in charge and Congress is incapable of passing basic federal rules, not even around basic things like deepfakes and impersonation. The states will feel compelled to act. The whole ‘oppose any regulatory action of any kind no matter what’ stance was never going to fly.
Department of Justice’s Monaco says they will be more harshly prosecuting cybercrimes if those involved were using AI, similar to the use of a gun. I notice I am confused. Why would the use of AI make the crime worse?
Matthew Pines looks forward to proposals for ‘on-chip governance,’ with physical mechanisms built into the hardware, linking to a January proposal writeup from Aarne, Fist and Withers. As they point out, by putting the governance onto the chip where it can do its job in private, you potentially avoid having to do other interventions and surveillance that violates privacy far more. Even if you think there is nothing to ultimately fear, the regulations are coming in some form. People who worry about the downsides of AI regulation need to focus more on finding solutions that minimize such downsides and working to steer towards those choices, rather than saying ‘never do anything at all’ as loudly as possible until the breaking point comes.
Saberspark [responding to a Sora video]: In the Dune universe, humanity banned the “thinking machines” because they eroded our ability to create and think for ourselves. That these machines were ultimately a bastardization of humanity that did more harm than good.
Cactus: Sci-fi Author: in my book I showed the destruction of Thinking Machines as a cautionary tale. Twitter User: We should destroy the Thinking Machines from classic sci-fi novel Don’t Destroy the Thinking Machines
I asked Gemini Pro, Gemini Advanced, GPT-4 and Claude.
Everyone except Gemini Pro replied in the now standard bullet point style. Every point one was ‘yes, this is a cautionary tale against the dangers of AI.’ Gemini Pro explained that in detail, whereas the others instead glossed over the details and then went on to talk about plot convenience, power dynamics and the general ability to tell interesting stories focused on humans, which made it the clearly best answer.
Whereas most science fiction stories solve the problem of ‘why doesn’t AI invalidate the entire story’ with a ‘well that would invalidate the entire story so let us pretend that would not happen, probably without explaining why.’ There are of course obvious exceptions, such as the excellent Zones of Thought novels, that take the question seriously.
Rhetorical Innovation
It’s been a while since we had an open letter about existential risk, so here you go. Nothing you would not expect, I was happy to sign it.
Robert Wiblin: It’s very important we start the fire now before other people pour more gasoline on the house I say as I open my trillion-dollar gasoline refining and house spraying complex.
Lukas: Then I learned it only takes like 1mg to kill you and I was like “hmmmm… okay, guess I was wrong. Well, doesn’t matter anyway – I only use uppers and there’s no way dealers are cutting their uppers with downers that counteract the effects and kill their customers, that’d be totally retarded!”
Then I see like 500 people posting test results showing their cocaine has fentanyl in it for some reason, and I’m forced to accept that my theory about drug dealers being rational capitalistic market participants may have been misguided.
They have never been a good idea, drugs are bad mmmkay (importantly including alcohol), but before fentanyl using the usual suspects in moderation was highly unlikely to kill you or anything like that.
Now, drug dealers can cut with fentanyl to lower costs, and face competition on price. Due to these price pressures, asymmetric information, lack of attribution and liability for any overdoses and fatalities, and also a large deficit in morals in the drug dealing market, a lot of drugs are therefore cut with fentanyl, even uppers. The feedback signal is too weak. So taking such drugs even once can kill you, although any given dose is highly unlikely to do so. And the fentanyl can physically clump, so knowing someone else took from the same batch and is fine is not that strong as evidence of safety either. The safety strips help but are imperfect.
As far as I can tell, no one knows the real base rates on this for many obvious reasons, beyond the over 100,000 overdose deaths each year, a number that keeps rising. It does seem like it is super common. The DEA claims that 42% of pills tested for fentanyl contained at least 2mg, a potentially lethal dose. Of course that is not a random sample or a neutral source, but it is also not one free to entirely make numbers up.
Also the base potency of many drugs is way up versus our historical reference points or childhood experiences, and many people have insufficiently adjusted for this with their dosing and expectations.
Connor Leahy: This is a morbidly perfect demonstration about how there are indeed very serious issues that free market absolutism just doesn’t solve in practice.
Thankfully this only applies to this one specific problem and doesn’t generalize across many others…right?
[reply goes into a lot more detail]
The producer of the AGI gets rewarded for taking on catastrophic or existential risk, and also ordinary mundane risks. They are not responsible for the externalities, right now even for mundane risks they do not face liability, and there is information asymmetry.
Capitalism is great, but if we let capitalism do its thing here without fixing these classic market failures, they and their consequences will get worse over time.
Richard Ngo: There’s a striking similarity between physicists hearing about nuclear chain reactions and AI researchers hearing about recursive self-improvement.
Key bottlenecks in both cases include willingness to take high-level arguments seriously, act under uncertainty, or sound foolish.
The basics are important. I agree that you can’t know for sure, but if we do indeed do this accidentally then I do not like our odds.
Anton: one thing i agree with the artificial superintelligence xrisk people on is that it might indeed be a problem if we accidentally invented god.
Maybe, not necessarily.
If you do create God, do it on purpose.
Other People Are Not As Worried About AI Killing Everyone
Sully: AGI (AI which can automate most jobs) is probably like 2-3 years away, closer than what most think.
ASI (what most people think is AGI, some godlike singularity, etc) is probably a lot further along.
We almost have all the pieces to build AGI, someone just needs to do it.
Let’s try this again. If we have AI that can automate most jobs within 3 years, then at minimum we hypercharge the economy, hypercharge investment and competition in the AI space, and dramatically expand the supply while lowering the cost of all associated labor and work. The idea that AI capabilities would get to ‘can automate most jobs,’ the exact point at which it dramatically accelerates progress because most jobs includes most of the things that improve AI, and then stall for a long period, is not strictly impossible, I can get there if I first write the conclusion at the bottom of the page and then squint and work backwards, but it is a very bizarre kind of wishful thinking. It supposes a many orders of magnitude difficulty spike exactly at the point where the unthinkable would otherwise happen.
Also, a reminder for those who need to hear it, that who is loud on Twitter, or especially who is loud on Twitter within someone’s bubble, is not reality. And also a reminder that there are those hard at work trying to create the vibe that there is a shift in the vibes, in order to incept the new vibes. Do not fall for this.
Ramsey Brown: My entire timeline being swamped with pro-US, pro-natal, pro-Kardashev, pro-Defense is honestly giving me conviction that the kids are alright and we’re all gonna make it.
Marc Andreessen: The mother of all vibe shifts. .
Yeah, no, absolutely nothing has changed. Did Brown observe this at all? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. If he did, it was because he self-selected into that corner of the world, where everyone tries super hard to make fetch happen.
.
