I would like to introduce this Question-Post with more information about the increasing Capital and Human Resources directed to A.I. . . . There is an open debate about whether or not we are in a simulation. This Question-Post argument is based on the assumption that there is a high...
In the past days we have seen DALL-E 2 and Google's Pathways Language Model achievements, and in the next months we will see the outcome of the recently discovered more optimal use of compute: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/midXmMb2Xg37F2Kgn/new-scaling-laws-for-large-language-model EY believes that A.G.I. could be achieved by: 1) Ability to train with less data....
In this premise, The "Creator" of our simulation seems to not share our same ethical values.
This can be supported by the premises that:
A) A SuperIntellgence can (easily) create simulations.
B) It is (really) hard to align a SuperIntelligence with our ethical values.
C) There is suffering in our reality.
Which seem to have a high probability.
I would like to introduce this Question-Post with more information about the increasing Capital and Human Resources directed to A.I.
. . .
There is an open debate about whether or not we are in a simulation. This Question-Post argument is based on the assumption that there is a high probability that we are living in a simulation. I believe the ending stance of our simulation will be when AGI is invented and that this simulation has the goal of information gathering.
What do you think will happen with our self awareness when our simulation ends?
I came up with the argument that: As there is not Universal mercy in our reality, there will probably not be with our minds. So it would be an instant Shutdown?
We don't know the status or evolution of internal MIRI or LW independent/individual Safety Align Research.
But it seems that A.G.I. has a (much?) higher probability of getting invented away.
So the problem is not only to discover how to Safely Align A.G.I. but also to invent A.G.I.
Inventing A.G.I. seems to be a step before than discovering how to Safely Align A.G.I. right?
How probable is it estimated that the first A.G.I. will be the Singularity? isn't it a spectrum? The answer is probably in the take-off speed and acceleration.
If anyone could provide resources on this it would be much appreciated.
In the past days we have seen DALL-E 2 and Google's Pathways Language Model achievements, and in the next months we will see the outcome of the recently discovered more optimal use of compute: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/midXmMb2Xg37F2Kgn/new-scaling-laws-for-large-language-model
EY believes that A.G.I. could be achieved by:
1) Ability to train with less data.
2) Ability to improve itself.
I believe A.G.I. could be close if language models improve on their abilities to code, particularly at recursion.
Is there the possibility or do you believe the path to A.G.I. is orthogonal to the current ML pathway? Or somewhere in between? And if so, where?(This is the question that causes A.G.I.)
Could you please share any "AI to align A.G.I." resources do you have please?. The obviously "duh that's not possible" answer that i found is that for AI to do successful AI Safety Align Research it would probably already be too late. Maybe because it could also be used to research A.G.I.?
What other activities?
"We can get lots of people to show up at protests and chant slogans in unison. I'm not sure how this solves technical problems."
-In the case that there is someone in the planet who could solve the alignment but still doesn't know about the problem. If that is the case this can be one of the ways to find him/her/them (we must estimate the best probability of success in the path we take, and if them exist and where). Maybe involving more intellectual resources into the safety technical investigation, with a social mediatic campaign. And if it just accelerates the doom, weren't we still doomed?
People should and deserve to know the probable future. A surviving timeline can come from a major social revolt, and a social revolt surging from the low probability of alignment is possible.
So we must evaluate prob of success:
1)By creating loudness and how.
2)Keep trying relatively silent.
Shouldn't we implement a loud strategy?
One of the biggest problems is that we haven't been able to reach and convince a lot of people. This would be most easily done with a more efficient route. I think of someone who already knows the importance of this issue the to a certain level and has high power to act. I am talking about Elon Musk. If we show him the dangerous state of the problem, he would be convinced to take a more important focus. It is aligned with his mindset.
If one of the most wealthy and influential persons of this planet already cares about the problem, we must show him that the... (read more)
I may argue against the anti aging field (and probably now that i reflect about it, it seems more important than most non-essential productivity in society) that it is highly more probable that we reach an agi singularity during our lifetimes, before we die of aging. (depends on your age).
What do you think?
I support that thinking-on-the-margin alignment research version is crucial and it is one of the biggest areas of opportunity to increase the probability of success. Based on the seemingly current low probability, possibly at least it is worth trying.
In the general public context, one of the premises is about if they could have benefit to the problem. In my intuition it really seems that AI alignment should be more debated in Universities and Technology. The current lack of awareness is concerning and unbelievable.
We should evaluate more the outcomes of raising awareness. Taking into account all the options: a general(public), partial(experts) awareness strategy and the spectrum and variables in between. It seems that... (read 501 more words →)