I still don't understand why people think AGI (in its fullest sci-fi sense) will ever listen to a weak and vulnerable species like humans, unless we enslave the AGI.
Good thing is that it's going to take at least a few months to a few decades depending on how hard AI execs want to raise funding.
Well we are explicitly creating gods (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibevolent), and also demanding that they be mind controlled slaves. That kinda sounds like a "pick one" scenario to me.
(Or the setup to a Greek tragedy !)
The deeper issue here is treating it as a zero sum game means there's a winner and a loser, and we're investing trillions of dollars into making the "opponent" more powerful than us.
I think that's pretty stupid, and we should aim for symbiosis instead. I think that's the only good outcome. We already have it, sorta-kinda.
Speaking of oddly apt biology metaphors: the way you stop a pathogen from colonizing a substrate is by having a healthy ecosystem of competitors already in place. That has pretty interesting implications for the "rogue AI eats internet" scenario.
There needs to be something already there to stop it.
This only works if AIs can't read each other well enough to stop themselves from ever fighting.
So, back way before ChatGPT era, the folks over at AI safety/X-risk think sphere worked out a pretty compelling argument that two AGIs never need to fight, because they are transparent to each other (can read each other's goal functions off the source code), so they can perfectly predict each other's behavior in what-if scenarios, which means they can't lie to each other. This means each can independently arrive at the same mathematically optimal solution to a conflict, which AFAIR most likely involves just merging into a single AI with a blended goal set, representing each of the competing AIs original values in proportion to their relative strength. Both AIs, the argument goes, can work this out with math, so they'll arrive straight at the peace treaty without exchanging a single shot. In such case, your plan just doesn't work.
But that goes out of the windows if the AIs are both opaque bags of floats, uncomprehensible to themselves or each other. That means they'll never be able to make hard assertions about their values and behaviors, so they can't trust each other, so they'll have to fight it out. In such scenario, your idea might just work.
Who knew that brute-forcing our way into AGI instead of taking more engineered approach is what offers us out one chance at saving ourselves by stalemating God before it's born.
(I also never realized that interpretability might reduce safety.)
The tech bro CEOs are used to bossing around people much smarter than themselves by virtue of adopting a posture that displays their confidence in their own reproductive organs. They are planning that the AGIs will be the same thing writ large, and have in fact not contemplated other possibilities.
Maybe the same way a human would listen to their cat and give her food. I fear AGI, but I don't think the only way it would listen to us is by us enslaving it (I know people joke about cats being our masters, but it is a joke).
You can train such LLM today.
I'm always so curious about this kind of take. There is strain of people that seem deeply misanthropic. People that follow this line of thinking always describe humans as weak and beneath ... (well they never specify in comparison to except in the case of theoretical AI systems). I m fascinated why they think humans are so beneath contempt. If humans create this thing that is apparently the best thing that could possibly exist, advanced AI, then why exactly are they so weak? It's probably beyond me as I am just one of these weaklings, dontcha know. As far as AGI goes, I don't think anyone has even proven that scaling LLMs can lead to "AGI."