this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
308 points (89.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43757 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Money wins, every time. They're not concerned with accidentally destroying humanity with an out-of-control and dangerous AI who has decided "humans are the problem." (I mean, that's a little sci-fi anyway, an AGI couldn't "infect" the entire internet as it currently exists.)

However, it's very clear that the OpenAI board was correct about Sam Altman, with how quickly him and many employees bailed to join Microsoft directly. If he was so concerned with safeguarding AGI, why not spin up a new non-profit.

Oh, right, because that was just Public Relations horseshit to get his company a head-start in the AI space while fear-mongering about what is an unlikely doomsday scenario.


So, let's review:

  1. The fear-mongering about AGI was always just that. How could an intelligence that requires massive amounts of CPU, RAM, and database storage even concievably able to leave the confines of its own computing environment? It's not like it can "hop" onto a consumer computer with a fraction of the same CPU power and somehow still be able to compute at the same level. AI doesn't have a "body" and even if it did, it could only affect the world as much as a single body could. All these fears about rogue AGI are total misunderstandings of how computing works.

  2. Sam Altman went for fear mongering to temper expectations and to make others fear pursuing AGI themselves. He always knew his end-goal was profit, but like all good modern CEOs, they have to position themselves as somehow caring about humanity when it is clear they could give a living flying fuck about anyone but themselves and how much money they make.

  3. Sam Altman talks shit about Elon Musk and how he "wants to save the world, but only if he's the one who can save it." I mean, he's not wrong, but he's also projecting a lot here. He's exactly the fucking same, he claimed only he and his non-profit could "safeguard" AGI and here he's going to work for a private company because hot damn he never actually gave a shit about safeguarding AGI to begin with. He's a fucking shit slinging hypocrite of the highest order.

  4. Last, but certainly not least. Annie Altman, Sam Altman's younger, lesser-known sister, has held for a long time that she was sexually abused by her brother. All of these rich people are all Jeffrey Epstein levels of fucked up, which is probably part of why the Epstein investigation got shoved under the rug. You'd think a company like Microsoft would already know this or vet this. They do know, they don't care, and they'll only give a shit if the news ends up making a stink about it. That's how corporations work.

So do other Lemmings agree, or have other thoughts on this?


And one final point for the right-wing cranks: Not being able to make an LLM say fucked up racist things isn't the kind of safeguarding they were ever talking about with AGI, so please stop conflating "safeguarding AGI" with "preventing abusive racist assholes from abusing our service." They aren't safeguarding AGI when they prevent you from making GPT-4 spit out racial slurs or other horrible nonsense. They're safeguarding their service from loser ass chucklefucks like you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 34 points 11 months ago (3 children)

We are no where near developing AGI.

It’s so far fetched that you might as well legislate for time travel and FTL drives while you’re at it.

[–] rip_art_bell@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Because I understand what LLMs and current AI theory/framework enables.

Nothing we have or could conceive has the potential to become an AGI.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago

Because I'm smarter than you isn't really an answer

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Are you able to articulate at least one specific reason that we are nowhere close to developing AGI?

Without any specific reason being stated, I’m tempted to believe you are just confidently declaring this to protect yourself from fear.

[–] Arin@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I agree we're far out, but not as far as you think. Advancements are insane and AGI could be here in 5-10 years. The way the industry have been attempting it the past decade is wrong though, training should be more indepth than images/videos, I think a few are starting to understand how to do more indepth training, so even more progress will start soon

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

I think 5-10 years is optimistic given how much hand tuning / manual training has to take place. Given how insanely long it's taken to get where we are and how many times I've heard machine intelligence oversold, and based on what LLMs can do I think we are still many decades out.

That said, what ML and AI can do is still game changing and will still have an impact even if it isn't some kind of scary skynet AGI thing.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We've been promised self driving cars for over 10 years and still aren't close, I think we're a long ways away from AGI.

[–] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago

I would even argue the only way to get self-driving cars that actually work well is with AGI. I don't think we're going to get either in a very long time.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, that promise came from someone who is clearly a conman of a swindler. If you ever took that promise seriously.... I'm sorry.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Elon/Tesla is far from the only outfit working on self driving. Chevy Cruise is the one that recently dragged a person under the car for dozens of feet.

For sure, but the traditional motor vehicle companies that were dragged kicking and screaming into the EV game were not making the same predictions of how quickly we would get to self-driving. That was pretty much all Elon Musk setting the absurd timelines, and a handful of tech companies who also were pursuing driverless tech. I would say the "serious" car companies never promised that, but maybe I'm wrong and just never saw it.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

No I absolutely agree with you, I've been skeptical of all the self driving news for years. However, I was using it as a parallel to other AI based discussions. While Elon may have been over hyping what was going to be possible in the near future, there is no evidence that other people aren't doing the same now.

Just like with autonomous vehicles, we've made impressive leaps in what ML can do, but I think there is still a long road ahead.

[–] brambledog@lemmy.today 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you are being optimistic.

If you are old enough to remember AIM chatbots, this current generation is maybe multiple times more advanced, not exponentially so. From what I have seen, all the incredible advancements have been in image production.

This leads me to believe that AGI has never been the true commercial goal, but rather an advancement of propaganda media and its creation.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

This leads me to believe that AGI has never been the true commercial goal, but rather an advancement of propaganda media and its creation.

Uh what? Why wouldn't it be because text/image generation isn't even on the same plane of difficulty as AGI?

[–] PlexSheep@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Imagine if we had FTL, that would be so cool.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If we actually had AGI I suppose it's possible we would have FTL.