lf88

Solving hunger worldwide, according to several estimations, would cost few hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Addressing extreme poverty (not poverty in general, I agree) may be in the same ballpark.

I would not extrapolate that easily from smart and intelligent people you may know to a machine trained on the whole internet and on the whole corpus of human literature. Also, some of the worst horrors in history have been perpetrated by arguably intelligent people.

I would also say that the "pet species" scenario is a rather optimistic one, as it presumes that developers of superintelligence will manage to instill some sort of love or care for humanity into their creation. An indifferent, powerful AI may be much worse.

Finally, when you suggest that a superintelligent AI may simply have the goals that we will give it, who is "we"? An AI company? a government? the united nations?

I also did, when LLMs could not count the “r”s in "strawberry" . Now that they can solve Millenium prize problems, I think that we should consider at least the possibility that superintelligence can be achieved.

Asbestos was once considered great progress in thermal insulation.

Of course the development of certain technologies can be severely restricted if they turn out to be problematic.It's not unlikely that it will happen for AI. Public opinion is shifting fast on the topic.

Also, banning superintelligence won't stop scientific progress in general.

Few points:

-We don't need a superintelligence for ending hunger and the abject poverty that plague certain countries and segments of our societies. I suspect that it would cost less than what is being spent for fueling the AI boom.

-If I were poor, I would be even more wary of a superintelligence aligned to "human values" defined by a bunch of billionaires.

- AI won't likely create unlimited prosperity for everyone on a planet with finite resources

- all humans should, of course, have a say

How about... not trying to build a superintelligence? The goal is unsalvageably flawed: alignment is ill defined and a future where humanity is the pet species of a god-like artificial intelligence is hardly an appealing one!

By making it illegal and punishable with a long prison term. Something like "if you train a model more capable that what we have nowadays, you have to destroy it and notify the authorities within few hours, otherwise you go to prison and your company is dissolved".

"Smaller and more efficient" models are fine. It's "smarter" the problem.

Training new frontier models will likely require a huge amount of computational resources for a long time. Few companies worldwide are capable of that. It's not like someone will train a new GPT 6 - like model in their garage.

By capping the capabilities at the level of existing models and banning any further development.

I still have to read a convincing argument for "datacenters in space". Why would you want to place expensive electronics in a harsh radiation environment, with challenging cooling issues, and where replacing faulty parts would cost a fortune? The main selling point seems to be "the idea sounds cool"

I am a physicist and I contribute to the development of an open-source, massively parallel simulation code. Writing code is maybe 10-15% of my working time. I code without AI because I find it more interesting: who enjoys reviewing AI-generated PRs?!.

LoL! What could go wrong? This strategy worked so well with all the other industries...

It's really sad to see what was taken away from people who loved the art of programming and are now forced to be managers of an army of robots. Maybe finding some time to code without AI assistance could help to alleviate the pain.

Relying on agents for everything is also dangerous, as it creates dependence, and codebases no longer understandable by humans.

I would add that the public is increasingly concerned about AI progress, which will put a growing pressure on lawmakers.

It's very sad, indeed. And I am afraid that, on the current trajectory, this tragedy will extend to all cognitive activities, including the most fulfilling. This is not the future I was dreaming for. This is not the world I want to inhabit. But I have some hope, because I see a mounting awareness that the future we are heading to is not the best one for humanity.

For the record, I still do all my coding without using any LLM.

I think that more people are finally realizing that the best plan of major AI companies sounds more or less like:

- We'll build an AGI able to perform most cognitive tasks at least at human level (including, of course, the most fulfilling)

- This will wreak havoc in the job market, but people can still compete for jobs requiring physical labor, until robots take also most of these jobs

- Then, we'll build an artificial super-intelligence way smarter than any human, and we'll be forever the pet species of a silicon god operating according to "human values"

- In the process, there's a non-negligible probability that humanity will go extinct

The goal may be to build a super-intelligence, but the plan is incredibly dumb !

short answer seems to be "no"

I think that media coverage simply reflects the growing anxiety among the public about the capabilities of new models and what future awaits us. Personally, I think that this anxiety is justified. If this leads to tough regulations about AGI/ASI (e.g., a permanent ban), I doubt that AI companies would benefit financially.

Last week, maybe? Yesterday, if you count small python scripts. Writing code by hand is too much fun to stop.

I hope that the Chinese leadership (and the rest of the world, as this is happening everywhere) that all this is not in the best interest of humanity.

AI progress is linked to most of these dangers, actually: - it will likely cause massive unemployment, leading to rampant wealth inequality - we are now seeing some use of autonomous weapons in real conflicts - increasingly relying on LLMs is arguably a form of technology dependence (and cognitive dependence) - datacenters have a non negligible environmental impact

It seems that, at the very least, he's giving substantial resonance to the issue.

It will be too late by then! At the very least, an immediate pause of the training of frontier AI models is necessary to figure things out. Personally, I am not particularly thrilled to rush into the bleak future that few AI companies have dreamed for the rest of humanity.

I think that we are speed-running towards a future that very few people really want, and I find it terrifying that few companies feel entitled to choose this future for the rest of us. Some of the arguments in this document would call for an immediate, global, pause on frontier AI training: we need time to consider how and to what extent AI should be part of our future. Personally, I can't picture a scenario where humanity thrives alongside an alien super-intelligence, especially if it cannot be fully controlled. Let aside super-intelligence, I am not even sure that deploying an AGI that replaces (instead of augmenting/assisting) humans in most intellectual tasks would be in the best interest of our species. This conversation has to happen, on a global level and as soon as possible.

By googling "4x4 matrices multiplication 48" I ended up on this discussion on math.stackexchange https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/578342/number-of-el... , where in 2019 someone stated "It is possible to multiply two 4×4 matrix A,B with only 48 multiplications.", with a link to a PhD thesis. This might mean that the result was already known (I still have to check the outline of the algorithm).