News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:25PM (#16796119)
What are a few examples of those cases, exactly?
Re:OpenAI Charter by eli_gottlieb on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:55PM (#16796395)
See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law. Remember, "AI" in these terms is basically just stochastic optimization (ie: machine learning), so the whole range of problems with throwing mathematical optimization at a vaguely-defined intuitive problem crop up. And there are a lot of those.
Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:00PM (#16796443)
> See: basically every instance of Goodhart's Law

No, I asked for specific examples. This is part of the handwaving I'm talking about. Can you give me something other than the maniacal paperclip optimizer?

Re:OpenAI Charter by rspeer on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:41PM (#16796804)
YouTube video recommendations, which converge on recommending conspiracy theories and shocking videos to easily manipulated people, especially children.

I am not worried about literal paperclip maximizers, but this may be the closest real thing to that parable. The hypothesis isn't that YouTube's recommender system didn't work -- it's that it worked too well at its assigned task of maximizing view time, and we humans are finally realizing that maximizing view time was not what we actually wanted.

Re:OpenAI Charter by p1esk on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:01PM (#16796960)
Do you think limiting research on recommender systems (or limiting access to such research) would help in this case?

What would be a solution to YouTube recommendation problem?

Re:OpenAI Charter by colah3 on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:12PM (#16797054)
It seems like OpenAI's Human Feedback research (in collaboration with DeepMind) is targeted at this sort of thing. They try to use human feedback to create more nuanced and aligned objectives.

https://blog.openai.com/deep-reinforcement-learning-from-hum...

Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @07:02PM (#16797736)
I think this is probably the most reasonable example I've been given in this thread. However, as you admit this is still very far off from a hypothetical AI hellbent on destroying us while we watch helplessly.
Re:OpenAI Charter by paulie_a on Monday April 09, 2018 @05:24PM (#16797135)
Let's be honest, most ai and ml is garbage. It's a promise that never delivers. It hasn't yet and probably will still be mediocre in 30 years
Re:OpenAI Charter by s2g on Monday April 09, 2018 @03:36PM (#16796227)
Terminator, 2001, I Robot, ...

oh wait you probably meant in reality. sorry.

edit: Oh and how could I forget the Matrix. Which of course we all totally live in.

Re:OpenAI Charter by Robotbeat on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:13PM (#16796564)
Before nuclear weapons were built, the only examples of their large-scale destruction were in fiction. The World Set Free by H.G. Wells is the main example I can think of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free

It got some of the details wrong (i.e. the atomic bombs exploded over a long period of time vs instantly), but the consequences were fairly accurate.

If you're going to wait until all the actual details and examples happen in reality, then it's too late to have much insight, especially if we're talking about something capable of self-replication like a virus or artificial intelligence. The nature of the problem REQUIRES anticipation instead of mere reaction.

Re:OpenAI Charter by dsacco on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:17PM (#16796588)
This is survivorship bias. How many weapons of mass destruction have been foretold by science fiction that have never been invented? More generally, how much technology has been written about in science fiction that we have only the faintest hope of ever achieving?
Re:OpenAI Charter by Robotbeat on Monday April 09, 2018 @10:02PM (#16798476)
Maybe one in five, depending on how you define it?

Look, it comes down to this:

Is there something innate about our intelligence that makes it impossible to match except through human brains? That strikes me as something akin to spiritualism. The answer is almost certainly "no." We're not talking about warping space through some hypothetical state of matter with laws of physics different from our own. We're talking about at least human-level intelligence, which is something we already have an existence proof of (us).

And humans are the most dangerous force on the planet. No animal (beside maybe microscopic organisms) stand a chance against a group determined humans. We're nearly unstoppable due to our intelligence. Our we so unique? Is it so impossible that machines could some day (perhaps in our lifetimes) be built which achieve human-level intelligence? Considering the computer advances that have already been achieved, it is clearly a real possibility if not a certainty.

Human-level intelligence is perhaps the most powerful (thus dangerous) thing on this planet. Making a machine that is at least as intelligent (and perhaps much more so!) is clearly something that could be incredibly dangerous, and we know such a thing is physically possible, unlike many things in science fiction.