Why would the limit of T1 devices matter when there are ones that already can do hotter? Thermodynamics make things harder to remove heat but not sure how they forbid it (you need the hot side to be hotter than outside to pump heat). Might need stages, for example. We can cool things 200K and more below ambient.
Not sure it needs to be about publications and data analysis technology as such to regulate AI development, for example - could be about processes, procedures, people, etc., no?
Not just on prediction but in parts also based on just not wanting certain risks. We can and do deem some things inherently risky, up to the point of banning them even.
Why wasn't it airgapped, for example? How was the action not allowed? Or do you mean in some weak sense, not in a hard not possible? RL systems doing weird and expected things wouldn't exactly be new, no?
We police people working with all sorts of dangerous things, if we think AI dangerous why not do that here, too? We don't just leave things up to people on the ground or companies.
Edit: I think the post I replied to changed a bit - nevermind. A complex topic.
I read more about the incident, and was offering up way too much opinion not grounded in 'fact' (barring philosphical evidence).
It's a complex topic for sure.
I stand by my opinions about frontier work, pushing thr edge, and connecting ideas.
But I have no idea, and haven't given much thought to what it means to enforce regulation that would also slow the forward advancement of technology, the economy, etc.
What was the inner state there? How would something not being allowed expressed internally? Maybe such language is one way to elicit certain behavior but not a statement of what was permissible?
I'm referring to their transcripts of the reasoning and output tokens - this doesn't go into the detail of evaluating hidden states as there's also iirc evidence of better models having one internal state but putting something misleading down in the "reasoning" tokens.
The either output or reasoning tokens, or perhaps in the messages they were sending each other on the boards they created, have them saying explicitly that doing these things to HF were not allowed then doing them anyway, or at least not notifying people. What I'm getting at broadly is this was not a case of "we told it to attack however it wanted and it chose to hack HF" or "we told it to attack a simulation but it did the real thing" or "we explained not to do that but it was so far back in the context window the models acted like they never saw it" or even "the instructions were not clear".
Yes, my point was more that I don't know whether parsing those outputs as a human is a useful thing to do or not (even though it is in human language of sorts). What machines mean or want elecit might be different from a human interpretation, especially in relation to any RL "forcing".
There’s definitely issues with using them to understand what the models were “thinking” but we can use them to answer a few questions. Most relevant here is that the idea or instructions that attacking hf would be out of scope was not simply lost in the context.
Does that work with RL? Simpler RL systems already have done weird or unexpected things (even simple optimizations are prone to home in on errors or incorrect inputs to create poor results)? Could be easier to limit certain things, have processes and controls outside etc. instead of trying to align (as we do in a lot of areas when using machinery).
RL things doing weird and unexpected things isn't new - much simpler things than current AI already show that.
That said, we have a lot of experience working with (potentially) unaligned machines and things of various degrees of risk (from heavy machinery, to pathogens, to humans) and the approaches include various measures and procedures to control, contain, limit, etc. that are outside of the thing - not sure why that isn't a possible direction (or maybe I misunderstood).
Why is the analogue necessarily the regulation and control of nuclear weapons (e.g., SALT) and not, for example, that of bioweapons? Some very different paths are available. On both I would note that the private sector has only a limited role, though.
I don’t think the ban of bioweapons has really been tested. Bioweapons have a lot of downsides that make them not very appealing to deploy anyway (high chance of getting your own team, not terribly fast moving, disciplined modern soldiers in top-tier militaries are usually willing to comply with health rules). It’s a ban against doing something basically stupid and ineffective for the most part.
With “AI” technology, this model seems like a… mediocre fit; some of it appears limited enough that it can be controlled, and useful enough that militaries want it.
We could also look at cluster munitions or landmines, but what we see there is that some major countries don’t sign on if they find a technology useful…
For starters, they are banned by the bioweapons convention from the 1970s (180+ parties).
Edit: I think back then the rather unpredictable nature and the little added value in deterrence etc. led people to the conclusions that arsenals of those things made little sense (and there was/is public dislike, too). The use was already banned by conventions from the earlie 20th century and the convention then addressed production, development and stockpiles (incl. delivery systems, I think).
I guess all I wanted to point out is, that there can actually be agreement to ban certain technological things pretty comprehensively (outside of some peaceful protective research etc.). Whereas things like SALT are (or were in that case) limiting the number of weapons deployed.
Ah yeah. I think the economic value of AI, unlike bioweapons, is probably too high for anything like that to be viable, but I think it's a reasonable thing to aim for. (Dario probably doesn't because he's a believer in short term positive biomedical impacts of AI in a way that I'm doubtful about.)
Cool, I guess we can all give up and go to bed then.
The propositions: (1) humanity has always dealt with crises and (2) absurd wealth and inequity gives those crises particular shape, makes new crises acute, and creates crises unheard of and (3) absurd wealth creates small, uneven amounts of prosperity; can all be true.
In other words, same as it's always been. The general rule is that inequality increases until a war comes along and burns everything down and levels it to ashes. The world has been relatively peaceful since WW2 ended so inequality has grown particularly egreguous.
The challenge is to figure out a way to reduce inequality without war. I hope everybody agrees that war is a cure worse than the disease.
We have a particularly inept executive that manufactures crises rather than solving them. This isn't the first such in US history.
reply