| ▲ | Animats 11 hours ago |
| Why are you assuming that the human is in charge? Needing a human to drive the AI is probably a transitional phase. |
|
| ▲ | pmg101 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Whether or not it's a transitional phase, it seems reasonable to want and to build better tools for where we are now rather than where we may be in some unspecified future, wouldn't you say? |
|
| ▲ | akbabu 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We think that humans will remain in charge for quite some time. Even a superintelligence won't know what we want until we tell it. The process of communicating intent/desires etc to an AI agent is a nontrivial interface problem (which Marble is trying to get at). |
|
| ▲ | mechazawa 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Agents frequently go off on tangents, make wrong decisions, require feedback etc. Agents have never moved away from being a junior that knows everything about programming but has no idea how to properly apply it. |
|
| ▲ | axod 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the human isn't ultimately in charge, don't be surprised when AI decides to eliminate humanity "for the greater good" or something. |
| |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | That would require consiousness and intent on part of the AI but we can have highly autonomous agents with no consiousness and intent as well and most likely that's what we will get. It still cannot just magically get free will, intent, and the ability to "eliminate humanity". | | |
| ▲ | axod 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wouldn't need any of that. An AI agent setup to "Do the best for the world" or some other broad claim, and with enough power to say crash the stock market, disrupt power supply, delivery, etc etc after reasoning that it's all for the best. If people start giving enough power to AI, with ill thought out goals, and no human in charge, don't be surprised... Why would it need "free will" or "consciousness" whatever that means? A concrete example might be putting an AI in charge of health policy, and telling it to "eliminate suffering" without any human to check and push back. Well, the best way to eliminate suffering is... | | |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | In your concerete example, how does the AI eliminate suffering? It has access to tools that let it kill people? If it has no intention and will, it means it will be provided with a charter or some rules to follow which it has to always. Why would humans put an LLM in a system that can eliminate suffering by genocide or whatever? And even if it did, if the AI is a complaint system, why will it not shut down when it has to follow its charter? I get AI can be misaligned but that doesn't mean it gets the ability to crash the stock market lol or super powers like that. Life is not a sci fi movie |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | reverius42 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Transition to what? |
