The reality is we all would love an AI that improves on its own. Look at all those chatgpt examples that were shared because it got something wrong. If only we could make gpt learn then it would only get it wrong once that would make it so much more useful.
And therein is the problem we all want this. But as soon as we allow the AI to learn on its own we have introduced the alignment problem. And of course on day 1 nobody will see gpt correcting itself on simple questions as an issue. But on day 365 after it’s been learning at an exponential rate and we’ll have all realized that it’s too late because it’s learned faster than we have.
Has anyone thought about what it would actually take to make gpt learn at an exponential rate? GPT4 from 3 was already starting to see diminishing returns. GPT3 cost $4.6 million dollars to train. 4 cost $100 million, an order of magnitude more, and required an enormous amount of data. All these training algorithms are O(n^2). Do we actually expect these things to grow exponentially or is it more realistic to expect we're going to spend a lot of compute and treasure only to see disappointing results?
We have entire fields that have been trying to solve the alignment problem for autonomous + intelligent agents for centuries: economic and political science.
Feels a little bit different though ?
...also, not sure if this is the point you're trying to make, but nothing is aligned with human interests really, look at what economics and the governmnet has done with climate change?
Re:Contra Marc Andreessen on AI
by CatWChainsaw on Wednesday June 14, 2023 @10:22AM
(#36326452)
"Trying": The Best We Can Do!
How is it possible to have something that is autonomous, intelligent and completely aligned?
There is a simple way to fix the alignment problem ,don't build systems that require aligning. I'm not really talking about regulation, I'm just talking about using common sense and wisdom.