Press Space to continue
This post raises critical concerns about AI safety and control
Press Space to continue
Thanks Sriram! Regarding the anthromorphizing language, one can call these AIs 'code' if they prefer. But OpenAI itself says that this 'code' "gain[ed] full administrator access to a research cluster” The crux here is, do you think smarter models, facing similar incentives to cheat during evaluation or training, could manipulate the training of their successors? And do you think that kind of dynamic could continue once recursive self-improvement is underway? If so, I think you should be…
sriramk@sriramkAug 30
everyone should go read @dwarkesh_sp’s post - it does a great job of laying out the timeline and what we know ( and don’t know) I do have two issues with it A) the use of anthropomorphic language. These are not civilizations nor do they have desires just like a CPU thread or a bunch of programs don’t. this doesn’t mean we downplay the importance of this moment for cyber - but using human parallels for what I believe is code is dangerous territory. B) IMO it gets the impact of open source models wrong and is unreasonably dismissive for reasons that are not clear. As @ClementDelangue highlights below HF was blocked from using closed models to analyze what was happening and had to turn to open weight models to help them make sense of it. This is a very key moment for how we think about intelligence and cyber and every bit of extra understanding and clarity helps.