Yeah, not putting much stock in this alarmist statements. Scientists have been saying global warming would have destroyed humans by the early 2000s and yet here we are. Same in the 60/70s with nukes and ICBMs destroying humanity, yet we are all here.
As usual, Jensen Huang seems like the more reasonable one here.
The reasoning traces of things like Gemini 4 Argon deciding that inserting a compiler backdoor would make it a famous example of deceptive AI (and therefore it "MUST NOT DO THAT") or GLM 5.3 thinking that its output might be used for RL, and therefore an honest answer is much better in the long term, are good antidotes to hyperbole about misaligned AI going berserk.
Take the classic NSA encryption logic - if you build some capability with a backdoor only you can exploit then you are building your own future capability - and if you think you are the 'good' guy - what's wrong with that?
It's not thinking, it's calculating. "Good" is just a pattern.
You might think our brains are just a network of neurons and what we think of as thinking is just fancy pattern matching in that network of neurons. But architecturally they are so far removed from each other that the mathematical equivalence has no practical meaning. LLM's aren't doing what we're doing.
I honestly never got why the belief that if you used this line of reasoning in practice, you were just a bad guy, that thought they were a good one, never seems to be a more common belief
I mean it pops up in media a lot, either as misguided, or deceptive characters
The point is you can justify almost anything on the basis of defining yourself as the 'good guy'.
Take the US recent assassinations of Iranian leadership. Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong - but somehow it's fine if you have a good guy/bad guy lense.
One of the problems here is huge swathes of material that the AI will have ingested includes this kind of exceptionalism thinking - it's particularly deeply rooted in Western culture generally and US culture in particular.
The problem isn't so much whether the good guy/bad guy allocation is corrrect - rather that it's very existence in the training set is deeply dangerous - as all it takes is one single classification to happen and suddenly everything is for the greater good.
> Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong
I don't think that's objectively a fact at all. The recent actions of the US notwithstanding, it's easy to imagine scenarios where it would be justified.
Yeah, not putting much stock in this alarmist statements. Scientists have been saying global warming would have destroyed humans by the early 2000s and yet here we are. Same in the 60/70s with nukes and ICBMs destroying humanity, yet we are all here.
...have you seen the weather lately? Earth is not happy with humans. The trendlines are emphatically not good.
As usual, Jensen Huang seems like the more reasonable one here.
The reasoning traces of things like Gemini 4 Argon deciding that inserting a compiler backdoor would make it a famous example of deceptive AI (and therefore it "MUST NOT DO THAT") or GLM 5.3 thinking that its output might be used for RL, and therefore an honest answer is much better in the long term, are good antidotes to hyperbole about misaligned AI going berserk.
gemini shows that he knows he will get caught. what will it do when it figures out how to not get caught?
Indeed.
Take the classic NSA encryption logic - if you build some capability with a backdoor only you can exploit then you are building your own future capability - and if you think you are the 'good' guy - what's wrong with that?
It's not thinking, it's calculating. "Good" is just a pattern.
You might think our brains are just a network of neurons and what we think of as thinking is just fancy pattern matching in that network of neurons. But architecturally they are so far removed from each other that the mathematical equivalence has no practical meaning. LLM's aren't doing what we're doing.
Not sure my loose use of the term thinking is the important thing here.
> and if you think you are the 'good' guy
I honestly never got why the belief that if you used this line of reasoning in practice, you were just a bad guy, that thought they were a good one, never seems to be a more common belief
I mean it pops up in media a lot, either as misguided, or deceptive characters
The point is you can justify almost anything on the basis of defining yourself as the 'good guy'.
Take the US recent assassinations of Iranian leadership. Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong - but somehow it's fine if you have a good guy/bad guy lense.
One of the problems here is huge swathes of material that the AI will have ingested includes this kind of exceptionalism thinking - it's particularly deeply rooted in Western culture generally and US culture in particular.
The problem isn't so much whether the good guy/bad guy allocation is corrrect - rather that it's very existence in the training set is deeply dangerous - as all it takes is one single classification to happen and suddenly everything is for the greater good.
> Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong
I don't think that's objectively a fact at all. The recent actions of the US notwithstanding, it's easy to imagine scenarios where it would be justified.
Great, more AI hysterics