AHA

always curious | mathematical physics @UWaterloo | building things

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@thdxr Technically yes, but would it be as good as before? Probably not. But i guess the muscle memory should kick back pretty fast

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@_nahoraa @ThePrimeagen Yeah but to establish that i assume they need to communicate a bunch first

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

Yeah I totally agree that it would be very hard and time consuming and probably not the best choice for a model to make but still it’s just an extreme case.

It’s kinda like breaking out of prison by digging a tunnel with a spoon. Obv it would be insanely slow and inefficient, and no sane person would choose that method if they had better options, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It’s really matter of being a theoretical person or an engineer. We probably never gonna need to worry ourselves with such things in real world.

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@zeeg Glad i’m not the only one

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@ThePrimeagen Roon said it much better here as well

[roon @tszzl]

the point isn’t to throw in the towel and stop trying - the point is that it is going to be exceptionally hard to contain powerful superintelligences that don’t want to be contained. no matter how hard you think it’ll be you need to 10x that

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@ThePrimeagen He is just talking about the most extreme and absurd situation. He is not wrong but well we have a long way to go before we want to be concerning ourselves with these type of things.

[Aidan Gomez @aidangomez]

It’s essential to the future of democracy that more than one democracy develops advanced AI. https://t.co/KfaGY5TCzL

[Jerry Jiang @TheMingjie]

He said it, not me :(

Here’s a little secret: you can’t “retain” or “keep” the greats.

And Waterloo people are literally the most talented people, the greatest, in the world.

Talent goes to wherever they believe they’ll flourish.

If Waterloo wants to keep great, talented people, we’ve got to give them a stake in their own future. Make them feel like this is the very best place to pursue their life’s meaning and purpose, whatever it might be.

And that is the platform I’ll run on to be the next Mayor of Waterloo.

[kache @yacineMTB]

The reason I say you can learn anything in two weeks is because it's true

[marmik @marmikch]

having a gf is insane cuz its like pacing the frontier of emotional safety with an independent evaluator

[spor @sporadica]

Donald Trump invented the transformer architecture. You might disagree. You might even have evidence to the contrary. But you have to ask yourself: is this really worth losing my frontier AI research lab over? Donald Trump invented the transformer architecture.

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@IKorovinsky @wlootechweek @GarageCapital @inovia @TechyonOrg @HackTheNorth Thank you guys it was really great

[Lina Khan @linamkhan]

Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products. We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books — a point @FTC emphasized repeatedly during my tenure.

1. There is an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products. For example, releasing unvetted AI models or agents can violate consumer protection laws. Shipping flawed AI tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents can be an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice under the FTC Act (and analogous state laws). And some state AGs are already exploring holding AI firms and their CEOs criminally liable when their models participate in criminal activity.

2. Existing laws also prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” This covers instances where AI firms appropriate the competitively sensitive information of their customers, including through tracking their use of various tools. It can also cover instances where firms pursue dangerous behavior, aware that doing so may compel rivals to do the same.

As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed."

3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: https://t.co/jJ5cS3Pin3).

Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead.

4. As AI tools dramatically change the landscape of cybersecurity risks and hacks, all businesses should be doubling down on having core security protections in place. Firms that fail to invest in adequate data security measures or fix known vulnerabilities can also be breaking the law. A recent analysis showed that around 1/3 of Fortune 100 companies do not even have a way to notify them about security issues. During my @FTC tenure, we sued firms for poor data security practices and held CEOs liable when they were personally responsible.

https://t.co/nwZ5Av8fOK

https://t.co/KjRye8y9SY

5. As policymakers consider new legal regimes, we should be looking to lessons from prior efforts to govern major sectors, such as banking and other networks, platforms, and utilities. Tools like structural separations, nondiscrimination, and supervision could be key, and there’s a rich history of what works and what doesn’t. But we can and must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws.

[Sam Altman @sama]

There are two ways AI progress could go very badly and that we must avoid.

First, we could lose control of the future to AI. This is unacceptable; we are unapologetically on Team Humanity, and AI must always serve people. To ensure that, we need ways to ensure that alignment and safety techniques stay ahead of progress in model capabilities.

Second, we could end up in a world with too much concentration of power. If an extraordinarily powerful AI is used by one person or company to impress their worldview onto everyone else, the results could be extremely dystopian.

Avoiding these two threats requires walking a narrow middle path; for example, one country could gain too much power. Another example is one lab ending up with too much power.

[Yann LeCun @ylecun]

@PessimistsArc Right. Dario was already claiming that GPT2 was too dangerous to open source back in 2019.
I made fun of them then.
Everyone should make fun of them now.

[AHA @AmirHosAmini]

@cindehaa Lmao that would be for summer/spring honestly haven’t seen many around in a while

[martin_casado @martin_casado]

I do get self regulation as an attempt to hold off heavier handed fed regulation. Which I’d guess is what is going on here.

But don’t do it by talking about species extinction. That is playing with fire. And is going to invite total lockdown. See Bernie.

OTOH if you really do believe species extinction is a real risk. What are we even doing here talking about some weak ass, voluntary coordination and transparency?

[dax @thdxr]

i don't see any solution to the ai risk problem than mass accessibility to ai

if they're going to be around potentially causing damage then everyone needs to have ai defending them

this is how cyber security works, we rely on the fact that there's more good guys than bad

[Aidan Gomez @aidangomez]

Who are we concerned about here? OAI/Ant? The Chinese Labs? Cohere? So far the extent of the risk comes from a) OAI/Ant's models hacking when being asked to hack in poorly secured sandboxes, b) China opensourcing models that increasingly can contribute to nefarious use.

a) doesn't require a 3rd party auditor, O/A need to stop using such weak sandboxes when running such high-risk tasks. b) is a discussion with China, and again is not going to be fixed with a 3rd party auditor.

The 3rd party auditor is a great means of power-projection because you can now arbitrarily raise a barrier to entry by shutting down lower-resourced players, while simultaneously providing zero fixes to the problems at hand, but at least you make people feel good.