Re:OpenAI Charter
by nunya213 on Monday April 09, 2018 @04:29PM
(#16796702)
He's probably suggesting that in Virology it's generally frowned upon to publish research on how to for instance make Smallpox airborne and as virulent as the Flu. So it could be wise to leave out the exact details on how to make an AI recursively self improving when publishing. If you've spent time in Research many groups already do this by leaving out small but critical details that make replication difficult or impossible. This is across fields not just CS/AI
[ Parent
| on HN ]
*She ---but yeah, as a first-order approximation, that's in the vicinity of it. Thanks!
Ok, so this would lead to restricting initial access to strong AI to a few well funded corporate and government groups.
Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus.
The exact details on how to make a Thermonuclear weapon are classified, do you think that is done so improperly?
Are you comparing building a nuclear bomb to running a piece of code?
Re:OpenAI Charter
by YeGoblynQueenne on Monday April 09, 2018 @08:30PM
(#16798129)
Well, it depends on the piece of code, doesn't it? How many people can actually run Google's search engine on their own hardware? Assuming they had access to the code.
See my response above.
We are talking about an actual AGI right which certainly has the potential to do damage comparable to Nuclear Weapons.
Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus.
True, but perhaps AGI would require substantial, non-trivial supercomputing resources as well...
Let's say you need 1000 of p3.16xlarge instances to run it (that's 8k of V100 GPUs), that's $25,000/hour. So the launch price is within reach of most US programmers. After launch, a true AGI can probably find a way to stay "alive".