[HN Gopher] OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI Announces $10M Superalignment Grants
Author : og_kalu
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-12-14 17:26 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| voiceblue wrote:
| > We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10
| years
|
| I'm not a fan of allowing corporations to control and define
| terms like AGI and superintelligence in ways that profit them,
| but perhaps it is our fault as a society for not producing
| stricter definitions of these terms. Seems to be a pervasive
| problem with terms in the sci-fi domain - we have 'hoverboards'
| these days, for example.
|
| Putting aside that lament, I wonder if we're heading towards
| another iteration of learning the bitter lesson [0]. It seems
| that the incentives presented here are trying to circumvent
| approaches that overly favor human oversight, but they still seem
| to overly emphasize human understanding.
|
| [0] http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
| p1esk wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear what "superintelligence" means, no?
|
| Superintelligence: smarter than any human. AGI: as smart as an
| average human.
|
| "As smart" means it can do anything a human can do.
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| > it can do anything a human can do.
|
| So it can get up and walk down the street?
|
| Not trying to be pedantic, but when one is defining things,
| one needs to be precise.
| p1esk wrote:
| Yes, when put in a robotic body.
| dumbo-octopus wrote:
| Is the robotic body capable of metabolism, growth, and
| self-repair?
| kweingar wrote:
| In this case, we are far from AGI
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Ok so that's no "AI" that currently exists then.
| jcims wrote:
| Not for long
|
| https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1734763060244386074
|
| Boston Dynamics' Atlas it's probably a more capable robot
| at the moment but Optimus will be much better position to
| act as an embodied agent in the next few years.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Then the AI isn't going for a walk, the robot is going
| for a walk.
|
| I can currently take an AI for a walk on my laptop,
| that's not the same as them being able to go for a walk.
| huytersd wrote:
| Is it has a mean of locomotion, yes.
| voiceblue wrote:
| Indeed, and accepting that definition still fails to
| include extraterrestrial life. (The way that first sentence
| is written in TFA made me think of first contact).
|
| Anyhow, it's too late for "AGI" and "superintelligence",
| aside from the baggage they also suffer from being in
| everyone's domain to do with as they please. Precise terms
| inherently cannot be abused like this (compare "sore
| throat" to "acute viral laryngitis").
| tsunamifury wrote:
| You just defined the word with the same word -- which is what
| everyone seems to do.
|
| Smarter how? Where? Computers are already smarter at math,
| physics, simulation, etc than humans
|
| Generalized smarter? At what? Emotional intelligence? Self
| preservation? on and on
| p1esk wrote:
| I mean "smart" in exactly the same way you would use the
| word when talking about people: "John is smarter than
| Paul". Or "an average college professor is smarter than an
| average college student". People use this word assuming
| others understand what it means. That's my assumption as
| well.
| wrs wrote:
| Interesting. In my experience, I would have said the use
| of the word "smart" almost invariably results in
| misunderstandings and biased comparisons. The concept is
| certainly used in casual conversation, but you can't do
| anything serious with it.
| eastof wrote:
| Aren't those terms totally meaningless in terms of modern
| "AI" though? AGI is nowhere near being able to play a violin
| solo, their fine motor skills are abysmal. The list goes on
| and on, they also aren't running a bakery, collecting field
| data for ecological studies, or playing literally any sport
| any time soon either. The concept of a disembodied system
| even being "smart" doesn't make sense to me.
| adastra22 wrote:
| No, it's not clear. There are already many domains where AI
| is vastly smarter than any human. There are algorithms like
| GPT which are fully general. So do we already have superhuman
| AGI today?
|
| Most people would object. But it is hard to argue against
| that on definitions. It usually ends up being "by
| superintelligence I meant the singularity." Which really
| makes this a question about reality matching science
| fiction...
| cyanydeez wrote:
| almost all terms are mediated by American businesses in
| America.
|
| Jay walking didn't exist until the car industry pushed for cars
| as the primary user of roads.
|
| it takes a strong government to push back. Europe is doing that
| but America continues to bow to "line goes up" rhetoric.
| dmix wrote:
| > it takes a strong government to push back. Europe is doing
| that but America continues to bow to "line goes up" rhetoric.
|
| Push back against what? The definition of "super
| intelligence"? Isn't there already issues with how the EU
| defines it making their policy potentially extremely broad?
|
| Or push back against how hypothetical future AI is regulated
| in 2023
| zackmorris wrote:
| Ya I totally agree. I'm disappointed that recent AI is being
| rolled out in just exactly the wrong ways that I was always
| worried it would be: * AI being sold as SAAS
| instead of evolving on everyone's computer. * An emerging
| market writing prompts to work around primitive attempts at
| security in LLMs that will likely never pan out (without real
| trust mechanisms). * Security in AI being implemented as
| a series of hacks rather than a broad understanding of ethics
| (may lead to cognitive dissonance and irrational behavior like
| Stockholm Syndrome in artificial agents). * Running on
| the wrong type of GPU/SIMD hardware (instead of infinitely
| scalable CPU clusters running mainstream desktop computing
| languages and algorithms that could be run distributed on the
| web). * Using the most complex neural net algorithms
| (instead of the other dozen simpler approaches like genetic
| algorithms, simulated annealing, etc that accomplish the same
| thing since they all hill climb within a large problem space).
| * Companies training AIs on billions of parameters derived from
| users' private data instead of public information on the web.
| * AIs being trained to solve art/music/creative writing (which
| humans enjoy) instead of commercial and industrial work (which
| humans generally try to avoid). * The intelligence of AI
| ever-increasing while the wisdom of AI to solve big issues like
| climate change and automating labor to deliver UBI and liberate
| humanity from wage slavery being almost an afterthought.
| * OpenAI being effectively a closed and wholly-owned subsidiary
| of Microsoft (of all companies). * The evolution of AI
| being directed by billionaires and moneyed interests instead of
| ordinary parents, teachers, etc who could raise AIs like
| children, or at least interactively like Anakin and C3P0.
|
| It sounds like they're throwing money at these problems in the
| form of the $10 million grant pool. Which is great, but IMHO
| the reason that AI advanced so slowly before this is that
| millions of people around the world live under forced working
| conditions where all of their productivity is either skimmed
| for profit or siphoned off for rents and consumption of staple
| resources.
|
| Any one of us could have worked on interesting problems like
| AI, but we've spent our lives developing CRUD apps to help
| others work towards their goals. This is the fundamental
| problem that I would like to solve, across all disciplines.
| Perhaps by automating computer programming, so that we're all
| out of a job and can put our creativity towards getting real
| work done again. (Thankfully?) this will inevitably happen in
| about 10 years anyway.
|
| So I'm looking down the road to 2033 when AGI has arrived and
| we're still all under the yoke working month to month to make
| rent, which is my worst fear. So far things are unfolding just
| the way I worried they would, so I've begun to think of AI as
| yet another weight that will begin to crush down around all of
| us like social media has, increasing wealth inequality to even
| more unbelievable levels as the vast majority of us struggle to
| survive.
| bambax wrote:
| > _This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer
| and trust AI systems much smarter than them?_
|
| Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a
| degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives.
|
| Maybe our destiny is to be pets to machines.
| justinwlin wrote:
| I think there's a _smidge_ too much variance in pet QoL for me
| to be ok with that outcome. Just ask PETA
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| You're mostly right, but do not, under any circumstances, ask
| PETA.
| righthand wrote:
| Enjoy your tuna and beef flavored human chow.
| morkalork wrote:
| Is that really much worse than what's on offer at McDonald's?
| righthand wrote:
| I couldn't tell you I don't eat McDonalds or dog food.
| tomohelix wrote:
| I mean, if it is cheap, healthy, nutritious, and doesn't
| taste like cardboard, then I would not mind at all. In fact,
| I would voluntarily use it as a staple food.
| righthand wrote:
| It tastes like puppy chow. You're comfortable eating the
| same thing every day for every meal right?
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > Our pets do this all the time. We're smarter than them (to a
| degree) yet they trust us absolutely, with their lives.
|
| With two caveats. Our pets overall don't steer us. They may
| nudge us to do certain actions, but in the end, we're the ones
| determining the parameters of the relationship not them. Humans
| abuse or give pets up for adoption way more often then pets do
| those to humans.
|
| The second thing is close pets dogs particularly (and likely
| cats) were forced to evolve over many generations to take that
| role in the relationship. Those dogs that maintained any
| independence or whose goal wasn't to please their human owners
| were effectively bred out of existence.
| willmadden wrote:
| >We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10
| years.
|
| Generating predictive output is not consciousness or
| superintelligence. I think the "superintelligence" talk is more
| of a ploy to scare the industry into regulatory capture.
| Remember, AI deeply threatens the existing business models of
| tech monopolies.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| On it's own, I would agree with you. Put in to a feedback loop
| with some form of drive/motivation as a guide, though? I think
| at that point we'll firmly be in quacks like a duck territory.
| And I no longer think that is as far-fetched as I would have
| even a year ago.
|
| Either way, I definitely agree with you on the regulatory
| capture angle.
| willmadden wrote:
| AI may eventually help us discover if human consciousness and
| conscious will are determined by the physical properties of
| our biology, or if something else is in play. Physical
| determinism within the confines of our understanding is the
| mainstream academic view on consciousness. I find it highly
| questionable. We shall see.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| Just because it blurs what the definition of "illusion" and
| "perception" mean to everyone but pedantic philosophers
| doesn't make it any more or less powerful, dangerous, and
| species-impacting.
| technocratius wrote:
| > This leads to the fundamental challenge: how can humans steer
| and trust AI systems much smarter than them?
|
| I think, as a first question to be answered prior to this one,
| the word "how" should be removed from this sentence.
| seydor wrote:
| is alignment the new security? openAI seems obsessed with that,
| meanwhile open source models are coming increasingly close. maybe
| they see business opportunity in the new security
| irascibeth wrote:
| > We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10
| years
|
| This has been the case since the 60s. "could arrive within 10
| years" is the tech equivalent of "maybe within our lifetimes".
| Nothing to see here.
| morkalork wrote:
| Maybe we can ask it to design a commercially feasible fusion
| reactor for us when it arrives!
| papito wrote:
| I am not sure autonomous driving will arrive in the next 10
| years, let alone AGI.
|
| These people are masterful con artists, throwing out buzzwords to
| hoover up billions of gullible VC dollars (a single tear rolls
| down my eye).
|
| How is that Web 3.0 going? Did we build Richard Hendricks's new
| Internet yet - sometimes I think they take ideas from the HBO
| comedy just to f*k with us.
|
| Granted, LLMs are a much more useful and substantial tech than
| Blockchain, it's an insult to [biological] intelligence to
| suggest that if we somehow train these things on JUST a bit more
| data, they will go sentient and murder us all.
|
| The AI image generators still don't know that humans have five
| fingers. I think it's a long way to super-intelligence, friends.
| bionhoward wrote:
| Id be shocked by them ignoring the blatant "customer noncompete
| clause dystopian hellscape loophole" thing again today and
| tweeting bloviating research white papers instead of performing
| literally 30 seconds of basic HTML or Next.JS code deletion, but
| I've already been shocked by it every day for weeks and at this
| point it's just funny to chuckle at their idiocracy.
|
| Gee, should take a whole minute of one person's day we delete the
| felony level explicit anticompetitive one liner from our terms
| which also happens to be an existential AI Safety nightmare
| because human brains are models in development? Nah, let's write
| a research paper about AI SAFETY!
|
| https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/974519864045756454/11...
|
| https://discord.com/channels/974519864045756446/118419694649...
|
| Way to go OpenAI!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-14 23:02 UTC)