News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OpenAI Charter by throwawayjava on Monday April 09, 2018 @02:10PM (#16795416)
What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment? Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.
Re:OpenAI Charter by Analemma_ on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:43PM (#16796291)
> What, concretely, makes you think that any of those companies wouldn't place a focus on safety and value alignment?

Competitive pressure, and the "if we don't, someone else will" effect (or Moloch, if you like). AGI- particularly recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from getting it (if it doesn't, y'know, kill us). This strongly encourages treating all concerns other than "get there first" as secondary.

> Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.

Not by choice they aren't. They are forced to be the way they are by government regulations, which they always bitterly opposed at the time of creation. In fact, capitalism has such a reliable record of "not giving a shit about safety until they are forced to" that I'm perplexed you think AGI would be any different.

Re:OpenAI Charter by eb3c90 on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:37PM (#16797226)
I think there will be at least a minimum of focus on safety and value alignment.

They may have to focus on safety and aligning it to the companies values (else test/weak versions are likely to destroy/negatively impact the company or at least be useless). Which is at least something.

Only hyperrational/intelligent value unaligned intelligent systems would avoid this pressure. I don't see the development going that way.

It would still be sub optimal though.

Re:OpenAI Charter by throwawayjava on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:55PM (#16796394)
This is a great response. Thanks.

> Not by choice they aren't.

This is why I was glad to see this in TFA:

>>> ...while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research."

Even for Weak AI, history tells us that these factors -- policy and industry collaboration -- tend to be significant ingredients in successful safety reforms.

Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:55PM (#16796390)
> recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from getting it

How? This doesn't seem axiomatic.

Re:OpenAI Charter by nunya213 on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:26PM (#16796670)
Seems clear that you could instruct the AGI to do anything it could to interfere with other organizations efforts to build an AGI. Obviously Nation States would have strong reasons for pursuing such a course of action and unscrupulous corporations would likewise have strong capitalistic motivations to do so.
Re:OpenAI Charter by p1esk on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:07PM (#16797006)
Seems very unclear if you could "instruct" true AGI to do something.
Re:OpenAI Charter by nunya213 on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:21PM (#16797125)
Maybe you assume that an AGI would be totally uncontrollable but in this highly speculative exercise I don't think you should assume your position is the only valid one.
Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @06:59PM (#16797723)
First you said it's clear, now you're saying it's highly speculative. Choose one.
Re:OpenAI Charter by nunya213 on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @01:19PM (#16803115)
I see no conflict.
Re:OpenAI Charter by p1esk on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:48PM (#16797294)
I don't think you should assume your position is the only valid one.

I don't, that's why I said "very unclear" (to me). If something is "clear" to you about AGI, then it seems like it's you who makes that assumption.

Re:OpenAI Charter by nunya213 on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @01:22PM (#16803140)
Seems very unclear if you could "instruct" true AGI to do something.

So you are claiming that by making this statement you are not assuming that it is impossible to control an AGI?

Re:OpenAI Charter by p1esk on Tuesday April 10, 2018 @01:41PM (#16803309)
I'm claiming that it's not clear to me whether we can control it or not.

This is similar to having a very advanced bioengineering technology, where you could instantly change anything about your body. Would you make yourself smarter? Sure. Would you change who you are (e.g. turned off your instincts/desires)? Not so sure.

Re:OpenAI Charter by rojobuffalo on Monday April 09, 2018 @06:06PM (#16797399)
Attempting safety and achieving safety are not the same thing. The default way new things get invented involves iterative attempts that gradually reduce failure cases. The fear is that AGI failure modes might be catastrophic and non-recoverable.
Re:OpenAI Charter by letlambda on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:08PM (#16796513)
They're also the world leaders in automobile safety-defects.
Re:OpenAI Charter by s1dechnl on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:19PM (#16796065)
This is what always amazed me about the AI safety groups... and mission statements for funding therein : There is nothing to suggest the minds and efforts capable of producing AGI will not have solved this at a fundamental level. Absolutely nothing... and after-all something of high intelligence is within controlled and reasoned states. If someone declared they created AGI and it was behind a door and when that door was opened you saw a robot manically trashing the place, you'd clearly laugh.
Re:OpenAI Charter by jsgo on Monday April 09, 2018 @02:20PM (#16795509)
haven't read a ton into it, but whatever Google is doing with the Pentagon probably runs counter to what OpenAI claims to be after.
Re:OpenAI Charter by sanxiyn on Monday April 09, 2018 @02:28PM (#16795589)
Not necessarily. Project Maven probably has no intention of developing AGI and therefore probably is not a concern to value alignment problem.