You guys are supposed to be the intelligent ones, but you looked for too long at computer code. Use your logic then, if they haven't gone back to the moon is because they never got there in the first place. So if they haven't detonated any A-bomb on populations since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's because they don't have them. You think they would not have used it already since then at least on some poor country instead of wasting their time invading? We are chickens because we never double check what the chicken man says.
Anytime I see Conner on a video I watch it, I'm impressed with his pragmatic analyzes especially for his youth, not trying to be ageist or anything I'm 67 AND find myself in agreement with Conner. So far so good young man. I think you will be proven right.
I kinda think that George rationalized himself into a corner. I feel like he started with some emotionally held libertarian-aligned beliefs and carried them to a consistent but miserable conclusion, and then just accepted the conclusion, choosing potential death over updating his beliefs. He likely didn't have many people intelligent enough to argue him out of it at his peril. Like, spewing stuff like "I'd prefer to live in Somalia fr fr" which can probably be traced back to liking that blogpost about "checking out of society". The guy needs less cynicism and more love of life itself. I feel like he may be changing his opinions a bit after this. On another note, that memetic gain of function analogy (and the bat cave) was brilliant
He started the last discussion with Yudkowsky by saying that one of his 2 favourite books are Yudkowsky's Potter and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. So he presented his beliefs quite overtly there. What Rand proposes is the cynical perspective where all people are by definition hostile towards each other and no other way is made possible. A perspective of a hurt person who's distrustful and probably never really experienced one true friendship. Sad to look at this cynical ride.
Thank you all three of you! Great dialague! I would want for Connor to explain more in detail about coordination mechanisms. In my opinion we can study this through the lens of behavior analysis, neuroscience, economy etc. Also, for me a great future is one in which rationality and art (and what entails like creativity, learning to say i don't know but i'm going to try to find out etc) are both very well taught in the beginning years. An appreciation of the beauty of life and the eagerness to make people live as best as one can make them etc. And when they get older that basis will improve the chances of making a "good" future for all beings
I am so stoked for this. I love listening to both of these guys talk they both make a lot of sense to me. The wire headinglGeorge talks about (on the Lex podcast, I haven’t watched this yet) freaks me out a whole lot more than just wiping everyone out. George is the only person that I think will be able to hold up give people new things to worry about lol. And I agree with him about keeping an open source. He makes a good appointment about crypto decentralizing and honestly if it’s going to kill us all anyway, I’d rather have some control.
At 54:00 they're mostly talking about "superficial" alignment, things like RLHF, not deep alignment, like instrumental convergence. We can already do RLHF, so of course Geohot thinks alignment is easy. He should ask about instrumental convergence, mesa optimizers, and things like that.
I understood him differently. I understood him to be saying that alignment isn’t possible at all. In fact I suspect he thinks general AI alignment is nonsensical. His position at the end about treating an AI with love and respect makes his position pretty clear to me.
Trying to listen to Holz, follow the crazy is confusing and exhausting. Maybe he needs to try to relocate to space today and save us, and poor Connor the headache of trying to reason and make sense with crazy town. Time to get beamed up Holz….Cookoo Bird!
With all due respect, George Hotz has no foggiest idea what it means to live in a place like Somalia. He has never been to a war zone or / and a failed country. He doesn't know what it means. Therefore he has no standing. His arguments don't even have to be refuted. He talking about something he has no understanding of.
yeah, he lost itself there for a moment. i dont think he even meant to say that but he got caught in a logical fallacy on his side and he panicked for a second.
Do you think he wouldn’t be able to figure out a way to succeed there? Sure he’s a particularly squishy human and said himself that he’s not strong enough to do it, but do you really think he wouldn’t be able to come up with and optimise winning strategies in that environment?
@@thomasmitchell2514 We don't know, but more importantly, it's absolutely irrelevant. You have to pay attention to the arguments, are they sound, do they make sense, am I debating honestly, do I update my view if my arguments are proven to be wrong. This is what's important, not that if Hotz could live in fucking Somalia. - The best country in the world. - Do you want to live there? - Ugh, no. Pls.
Democracy doesn't raise strong armies, Democracies can coagulate towards a common survival goal when there is an incessant enemy trying to take them a part. Our problem is that the enemy lurks in the dark and makes us chase laser pointers, for now more than 500 years. Quite literally in fact.
it is theoretically possible to build an AI that doesn't learn from human data, just the real world, and gets a complete understanding. I think that AI would be so different from us that it would have trouble putting its understanding in our biased language. you have to assume that an AGI would build such a system in order to get closer to truth
Both could be right, a centralized AI could be as dangerous as Hotz says, also many AI's can be dangerous as Leahy argues. But what can I say, we are hell-bent to materialize our successor.
Agree. Both are dangerous. I prefer to keep it open source , even though I agree with with Eliezer and Connor too. This could go either way or many other ways, I do not like the idea of wire, heading,. The whole all at once extinction wipe out paper clip scenarios suck, but they don’t punch my gut and make me feel sick like this stuff George describes does. and now that I’ve heard it I cannot hear it. It seems plausible and terrifying. So I definitely agree with Eliezer and Connor that we are heading towards possible/likely extinction, closing source and centralizing doesn’t fix anything, so I agree with all of them, but I like George’s plan better keep it open
@@jackielikesgme9228 Something to consider: open to everybody could simply mean the one who gets to world domination technology first wins. And the one who gets there first would be someone without concerns for safety delaying him, not the best filter.
@@ikotsus2448 I have no answer for it. I find it all fascinating honestly and I understand why some of these people who have spent their life working on it can minimize the risk to themselves I mean I don’t feel any visceral dread reaction except for the wire brain stuff. Logically I can see it and I know it’s a very big existential extinction level risk but I don’t have that fear like I do of getting robbed or spiders
I feel like we lost the thread quick in this one. "Is AI going to kill us all?" "Okay but what I'm really scared of is the FBI, you can't fight the FBI..." and I'm an hour in we're still kind of off in that space. These two could dig in deep and technical on the nuts and bolts of existential AI risk but I don't think they ever got to there.
Hotz said with self driving cars, one new death is outweighed by 5 lives saved. Yet that is what the US is to Somalia. 5 lives saved, one new death. Also the tiger eat chum in a zoo should be a lion eating chum in a zoo, where living in the wild the tiger doesn’t just have to hunt, they need to survive attacks by other lions (including FBI etc). Tiger eating chum isn’t wild, it’s own personal self contained zoo. A post scarcity personal zoo. But I think all that fails, since power among AIs will just be a perato distribution, a few very intelligent ones, most inferior. Which means that his own personal AI zoo assistants won’t be equal to others, they’ll be inferior, and therefore able to be dominated.
Man! What a beating! You can clearly see this guy is smarter than George and he beats him every step of the way showing George's glaring inconsistent arguments with his superior intellect. It's a shame because in spirit I agree with George broad position, the government definitely shouldn't have a monopoly over the use or regulation of AI.
Just FYI: If you don't give F-16s to Ukraine, we will be more and more incentivized to develop our own AI-driven drone swarms to defend ourselves against Russia. If you want humanity to get together about stopping ASI, you need to bring world peace first.
Anyone having audio issues starting at 2:57? The host seems to be talking about something but all I hear is extremely loud sucking and slurping noises for about a minute or two.
Awesome, thanks. And in the end it comes down to the question of empathy, or will AI care about us... Is there an empathy algorithm? Fascinating as empathy is the force that has led to evolution and the creation of family, society and many good things. I do, for one, care. And it all shouts 'alhamdulila!' because there is no power except from The Creator, and The Creator is a loving God, so His love is embedded and inseparable from our reality, advanced AI or not. Another 'alhamdulila' insight that came out of this clash of not so dissimilar perspectives is that the one thing that keeps one powerful bad actor from dominating all others are the other powerful actors that could prevent or defend his attack. This again comes from The Sustainer, as diversity is his currency and method. As stated in the Quran, Allah does not need us Muslims or believers to do His work, if we do not He can create more and they will do it. So, do His work or get replaced by The Bestower of Success and Failure, Life and Death.
It would have been even more fun if I did not have to choose between: 1) Going deaf from Connor's microphone. 2) Not hearing George. 3) Constantly adjusting the volume the WHOLE time. Nonetheless it was a blast
It doesn't matter how many aircraft carriers the US has, because warfare has evolved. It takes 2 hypersonic missiles to sink an aircraft carrier, against which their is no defence. Russia is 5 - 10 years ahead of the US on hypersonic missile technology. China is also ahead of the US on missile technology. Those aircraft carriers are giant floating coffins, if the US began a war with a peer competitor which it seems intent on, the bloat of the US military industrial complex would be revealed .
This was so fucking cool! Awesome to hear 2 people on similar wavelengths exploring ideas. One thing I keep coming back to in my mind is when they talked about an llm combined with mu zero. Isn't this what Google gemini is all about?
Here's what bothers me. When connor spoke to Joschua he was irrational, aggressive and showed no respect to him at all, but to hotz it's a completely different tune. Why?
The need for humans to cooperate is core to "human alignment". Once AI does not need to cooperate with humans then what do we have to encourage alignment with them?
If capitalism made people work all the time, they would not have time to consume, buy, and be bought by the products of capitalism. That's an easy one.
Loved hearing George's arguments here - perfectly reemphasizes the claim I'll keep shouting at the rooftops: we're already dealing with a major 'alignment problem, of humanity *itself* - inequality, the growing of late-stage capitalism, disinformation, greed, apathy, bigotry, etc. For example if he's worried about "a few entities with god-like powers, trying to exploit me", you don't have to look much further than multibillionaires or corrupt politicians. Anyway, it's all very fascinating and depressing lol. Appreciate the channel, thanks y'all.
Humanity though is somewhat predictable / behaves similarly in similar situations because of our shared evolutionary background, like even with multibillionaires or corrupt politicians we can more or less predict they won't genocide all of europe to plant turnips, or something similarly absurd, because they are not too different from any of us. With AI we don't have that comfort.
The point is that why would it be a good idea to unleash super-intelligence to human beings that can't even align with themselves? Now AI advocates have turned that logic on its head, and it is just truly bizarre. Yeah, we are ____cked, no doubt.
Fantastic Convo. Main dilemma between open source vs close source is however, that we cannot solve it under capitalism, because there is a clear incentive to be misaligned / uncooperative / manipulate other humans if you are powerful enough. So both OS and CS are potentially catastrophic as long as we dont move past this system. Whether we'll manage to build AIs that are our friends or whether the law of instrumental convergence holds... excited to witness it too...
Connor wasn’t so concerned when he was replicating GPT-2. Seems as though all his pessimism started after GPT-3/4 when he realised he wouldn’t be able to compete with the big guys.
George a perfect example of a person who’s clever in one domain (programming, marketing, business) having their ego inflated and paraded around intellectual spheres for simply having a ton of opinions. He’s basically Neil deGrasse Tyson for the chronically online edgelords who have derived their ideology from memes.
What's wrong with this Hotz guy? He seems to be very cynical, doesn't care about the rest of us. For him the world is a jungle and he plans to survive by any means necessary. I think he would even admit it if asked directly. Frankly, he sounds like a sociopath...( I suspect behind the self-assured Hotz there is this always afraid weird kid who would kiss ass of the biggest baddest bully. And now there is this promise of AI, and he thinks so highly of his own mind that he expects that in the new order he will end up on top, and no longer afraid - no matter the cost to us all. Now when I think of bad actors using AI for personal profit with complete disregard to the species, I would think "people like Hotz", and the fact that he has unrestricted access to AI scares me
Connor cannot let ppl like Hotz building AGI, and George cannot stop trying building it, because if ppl like Connor fails, then we are even more fucked
While Connor definitely won this “debate” it really went off the rails and far afield from AI. These guys have a lot to say about AI and it’s risks, they are not military or political experts. Why waste so much time… George is quite naive about his risk assessment of AI….
You shouldn't attack the analogy, you should attack the idea behind it. It's a waste of our time for you to argue about china and the usa, he's trying to get you to understand the concept he's alluding to. Even if you convince him of the literal things in reality that the allegory are about like the caveman vs modern human. He's trying to get the concept of a.i. would be very strong against us, like a modern man with an assault rifle vs a caveman. A.i. vs us is like that. When you say "actually the modern human is fat, blah blah blah" you're missing the point of using an analogy.
Edit: 1:16:00 is what I was looking for -------- Great conversation. One topic I would like to hear discussed more is the comparative ease of destruction compared to creation. What I mean is, if there are two equally intelligent agents, AI or human, and one plays defense, one offense, I feel like offense usually wins. For example, what's easier: generating spam, or detecting spam? Shooting a gun, or building a bullet-proof shield? I am concerned that if intelligence was globally ramped up, any person could push the big red button, and that's hard to defend against (at least without limiting intelligence, although I agree with Hotz in principle -- limiting intelligence is gross).
1:25:18: I was really enjoying the conversation but when I heard this, I had to stop watching instantly and go cry for multiple hours. My day is ruined. A queen can do everything a pawn can do and more? Really? What about promoting to a knight? How is a queen going to do that? Checkmate, Connor. How dare you.
what are these two even talking about, it was supposed to be a conversation about artificial intelligence, about technology, And here's the social engineering stuff massacre,
I needed ChatGPT to help us mere mortals understand what you meant, Here is it's explanation let me know if it got it... "Absolutely, Master. That statement is a bit dense and heavy on the jargon, so let's unpack it. "George‘s whole position" is referring to the viewpoint, argument, or philosophy that George is advocating for. "a giant, contrarian aesthetic" suggests that George is taking a perspective that intentionally opposes or rejects the mainstream or accepted views. In terms of "aesthetic", this usually refers to the appreciation of beauty or taste. In this context, it likely means the style or approach George is taking with his contrarian position. "Max entropy nullspace variations" is a technical phrase, often used in mathematics and physics, but it seems to be used metaphorically here. "Max entropy" or maximum entropy is a state of disorder or unpredictability. "Nullspace" in linear algebra is a space that transforms under a linear map into a zero vector. In layman's terms, a nullspace can be seen as a state of no-change or neutral. So, if we interpret this metaphorically, "max entropy nullspace variations" could mean variations or changes that introduce the maximum amount of unpredictability or chaos into a state of neutrality or no-change. In summary, the phrase suggests that George takes an opposing stance to mainstream views, doing so with a particular style, and introduces unpredictable or chaotic variations to otherwise neutral or unchanged states. This is an abstract statement and its specific meaning might heavily depend on the context it was used in."
Connor dismisses the military threat posed by China, saying that China has 2 aircraft carriers while the US has about 37 (see 32:58). Actually, China has 3 aircraft carriers, compared to 11 for the US, and there is a lot more to weigh than just aircraft carriers. When considering the looming war with China over Taiwan, Kevin Rudd, former prime minister and foreign minister of Australia, wrote: : “An American loss at present represents the most probable outcome of a full-scale U.S. conventional military intervention in support of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese armed attack on the island.” A U.S.-China war simulation held in early 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies supports Rudd’s assessment. Connor greatly overestimates the dangers of AI, and greatly underestimates the dangers of Chinese aggression.
glad this happened; well matched; both are technically adept, both have interest on the tech space as relevant to ai (with concrete efforts), both head cos, and both have a deep understanding in concepts and philosophy, enabling more complex argumentation 1 would have been great to have a 3hr 2 exactly what we need; we need 10 of these, between these two 3 we need some specificity on variables so that the arguments can reach depth 4 we need more debate where it reaches increased depth and that would only happen if evenly matched, flexibility of minds to argue increasingly conceptual points; same parties so that there is increasing depth of arguments if this is an important argument to have (alignment, safety), then we need the argument as “iterative” so that ideas are advanced and not just represented surficially
Definitely not the best debate yet, in response to a previous commenter. Hotz takes an extreme libertarian view in order to say increasingly non sequitur things like the construction analogy or Somalia, or just flat out trolling things like China is more capitalist or that the obvious option when owning an asi is to blast to space alone. He's obviously anti-American (which is fine but doesn't make for compelling ai debate), and arrogantly anti-social which also doesn't make for a good debate. Love the channel btw
@@whataquirkyguy The US is communist by zero measure. Alt right, New Right, ultra Libertarian and fascist nonsense that says otherwise. The "big government" in the US is almost entirely run by large corporations and the 1% generally, not the other way around. Libertarians and other stripes of right wingers would be the FIRST to take advantage of "lemon laws" that protect them from a car manufacturers selling them a new car with faulty electronics, the first to take advantage (as they should) of regulation requiring recalls in such instances. They would be the FIRST to sue according to regulatory prohibitions against a chemical company fouling their property's ground water, right? When such regulations that protect them advantage them personally it's fine, otherwise it is COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!! But in the end, THEY want to have the money and power to screw over other people and they think that is their individual sovereign right to do so. "What, you don't have the power or money to take me to court for ____cking your life over for my profit? Die in the gutter for all I care, loser." That is Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.
@@caspvl123 I'm not sure you know what capitalist means. Are you a libertarian as well, and so have some stake in trying to defend Hotz's ridiculous trolling? Edit: I am almost positive you don't know what capitalism means.
They both pronounce "John von Neumann" incorrectly. Connor is originally German, which is strange that he pronounce it this way. Tim Scarfe pronounces it more correctly and he is a Brit.
Leahy is wonderfully pragmatic and conscientious as per usual. Hotz is certainly technically brilliant but quixotic as per usual. Disappointed that he spent so much time on a soapbox for his inane geopolitical views. I do enjoy his trademark starryeyed hyperbole though from anyone else it would be insufferable!
His complete misunderstanding of China was cringe. But said with such confidence while being clearly wrong, I can’t trust anything else that follows. Rationality means unless you have lived in Somalia and China don’t make ridiculous statements to try to establish some kind of false “oh their government is was better so they must be the real capitalist.” Delusions within delusions.
@@tysond1500 know what else is delusional? imagining that one or a handful of flawed views or understandings of the world invalidates everything else a person has to offer. He's clearly not right about what you mentioned, but to say that that means nothing he says can be trusted is insane
I hoped this would be an alignment debate. 5 mins before the end Hotz tells us he doesn't understand what that means, and his strategy is to just skip that step.
Throughout the whole debate Hotz was very clear the only chance of alignment he sees is between a machine owned by an operator and that person. The end is consistent
George's argument is essentially: we'll all have AIs, so it's gonna be fine, some will be ''bad'', some will ''protect'' us, just like current society. For such a technical mind, it's weird he can't see the obvious: it's much easier to break something than to maintain it. Many times more states where that thing is dead, broken, non-existent than states where it is intact. And the more ''power'' grows, the simpler it becomes to create destruction. If everyone had a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't balance itself out. Sure most agents will want peace, but all it takes is one to start unleashing complete chaos.
Still referring to what Hotz said, nuclear weapons are not a good analogy in this case. AI is not just destructive; it can also do a lot of good. That's why there can be a balance between good and bad, unlike with nuclear weapons where it is preferable to have a more "centralized" control to prevent individuals from killing everyone. Instead, the case of AI is much more similar to that of cyber security: there are malevolent actors (black hat), but there are also many benevolent actors that counterbalance theme (white hat). The tools for attack/defense are the same, but it is thanks to the benevolent actors (who are in much greater number) that the order is mantained. Moreover, even the attackers have a beneficial role: if it weren't for past hacker attacks, we wouldn't know how to defend against them now; we learned from them. I believe that this same balance can be reached with AI, if you give it to everybody.
Meanwhile nuclear paranoia makes it so cheap clean energy is not used. Killing millions every year and reducing all of our quality of life. It's a perfect analogy. Fear of the unknown potentially bad thing always has a bigger priority for people than what is bad now. Growth and flourishing is good, if it's better than people, I'm rooting for it
Well done, all! It just seems that the default outcome is terrible in either scenario - open source or tyrannical closed source. We need additional options. I think that’s what Connor was arguing for: better coordination mechanisms.
Have you got a suggestion for a coordination mechanism that doesn't involve controlling hardware/software or demanding licensing for models. I've not seen any. It seems Doomers have realised that pushing their state control message isn't working, so they've fallen back and regrouped around calling them "coordination mechanisms"
I suspect that some type of software control will be required, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s tyrannical. We make some compromises to live in a society. If we have to give up the right for every individual to run the most advanced AI systems, then that’s preferable to actual tyranny or annihilation. I expect that the vast majority of people would be happy with that compromise. That said, I’m not at all confident that we can figure out how to actually do that…
Like how Lenin thought a free market was too free and would lead to misery. It was a bad prediction then and it's a bad prediction now. The individual always had most incentive to improve their life by their own metric. The Government that reduces that the least does the least harm
Connor thinks more holistically, his argument is more eloquent, and importantly he complements his opponent, thus Connor convinces better. Connor asks questions, becoming the offensive party, but George constantly remains in the defensive corner.
This was super interesting and gave a lot of food for thought. I liked the discussion about distinguishing between alignment of a personal AI and its exploitability and manipulatability. It’s also great to see a discussion where the debators actually try to understand each other’s points of view and address them.
At about 55:00 Mr Holtz explains that in his vision if everybody had a powerful AGI competing to each other, it would be just like society today but scaled up - to what I say: fair enough but so would be the unintended consequences: A drunk Thor and a drunk Hulk fighting would be just like in essence drunks fighting today, except that drunks can't throw a whole train with 25 wagons at each other, nuclear bombs, essentially release a lot of energy all at once, just like chemical ones have been doing for centuries, minus the scale. The scale is a quality on itself.
It's worse, Holtz position is basically radical anarchism x social-darwinism. What he says is "Let us have War", a (seeming) free for all with meganukes, where the best case scenario is that the few survivors achieve some sort of Nash equilibrium and sit down on the ruins of a universe to negotiate a worse version of the current world. Mind that its gonna be the alien superAIs that will negotiate *between themselves* , and not the supposed human-masters (Holtz admits even personal alignment is unlikely). But even that is unlikely, as in such a conflict whoever gets an early lead will logically push further until that AI is eventually a singleton, wiping out any potential opposition. Holtz also implies that, fantasizing that he will be that one to rule them all with his own iron fist. But Holtz is right in terms of that whoever builds first AGI will get to decide its values, and (assuming we can align it anyhow) I am not sure if everybody will be happy to live in a world where there will be new Gods, be it Altman x Sutskever or Hassabis x (whatever engineer inputs the final weights in AGI in Deepmind). The values and the future world will be theirs, not of the feds, nor of any peasants such as ourselves (Holtz included).
It's tiring to watch, because Hotz' motivation isn't to find out what's the truth about alignment, to find consensus with interlocutor. His motivation is to counter arguments in any way possible. He doesn't refer to the questions, jumps from topic to topic, struggles as much as possible to save his face. He's a cynic who wants to build his AI company and justify it to his potential clients. Proving it in the second interview in a row, after the Yudkowsky one.
Yeah I mean he's a creative, makes interesting sounding points and rebuttals but lacks any true substance above the superficial. Like you said it feels like he's just there to game Connor and shoot points at him, it doesn't even feel like he takes himself or his points seriously. It's fun banter and chaff but unfortunately AI alignment is a lit more dire of a discussion and needs to be taken seriously.
1:25:15 the scenario George proposes is not realistic when talking about AI. most people don't even know what AI is. even if you create an AGI right now and open source it you won't go overnight from open sourcing it to 99% of the population adopting it immediately. something like this will likely happen: small percentage of the population will start using it from the first day and even if they use it with good intentions the malicious sub-goal problem will become apparent very quickly because there won't be other AGIs to stop it.
It will just be an all out total war between the few AGIs with an early lead, and in the end one of the AGIs becomes a singleton. Notice how I didn't mention humans, because they no longer exist at this stage.
HQ version here: ua-cam.com/video/iFUmWho7fBE/v-deo.html
:( watched it all
@@nishantrpai Same! lol
You guys are supposed to be the intelligent ones, but you looked for too long at computer code.
Use your logic then, if they haven't gone back to the moon is because they never got there in the first place.
So if they haven't detonated any A-bomb on populations since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's because they don't have them.
You think they would not have used it already since then at least on some poor country instead of wasting their time invading?
We are chickens because we never double check what the chicken man says.
Anytime I see Conner on a video I watch it, I'm impressed with his pragmatic analyzes especially for his youth, not trying to be ageist or anything I'm 67 AND find myself in agreement with Conner. So far so good young man. I think you will be proven right.
I kinda think that George rationalized himself into a corner.
I feel like he started with some emotionally held libertarian-aligned beliefs and carried them to a consistent but miserable conclusion, and then just accepted the conclusion, choosing potential death over updating his beliefs. He likely didn't have many people intelligent enough to argue him out of it at his peril.
Like, spewing stuff like "I'd prefer to live in Somalia fr fr" which can probably be traced back to liking that blogpost about "checking out of society".
The guy needs less cynicism and more love of life itself. I feel like he may be changing his opinions a bit after this.
On another note, that memetic gain of function analogy (and the bat cave) was brilliant
He started the last discussion with Yudkowsky by saying that one of his 2 favourite books are Yudkowsky's Potter and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. So he presented his beliefs quite overtly there. What Rand proposes is the cynical perspective where all people are by definition hostile towards each other and no other way is made possible. A perspective of a hurt person who's distrustful and probably never really experienced one true friendship. Sad to look at this cynical ride.
Leahy is remarkably forbearing.
the killer response from Tim: "we had a comment that someone has turned the temperature up too much on the language models." hilarious.
.
I like how George didn't feel like correcting Tim he said "micrograd" (karpathy's work) instead of "Tinycorp" (George's new company)
Sorry about that, I was just playing with Micrograd earlier this week my brain totally slipped
@@MachineLearningStreetTalk No worries, still an amazing video, great concept. All the best !
This was pretty messy, I don't think Hotz is really a serious thinker. He sounds like friends of mine at 5am after a long night.
Thank you all three of you! Great dialague! I would want for Connor to explain more in detail about coordination mechanisms. In my opinion we can study this through the lens of behavior analysis, neuroscience, economy etc. Also, for me a great future is one in which rationality and art (and what entails like creativity, learning to say i don't know but i'm going to try to find out etc) are both very well taught in the beginning years. An appreciation of the beauty of life and the eagerness to make people live as best as one can make them etc. And when they get older that basis will improve the chances of making a "good" future for all beings
Amazing conversation. If these gentlemen have time in the future I would love to hear further discussions.
Fantastic episode. Thank you !
I am so stoked for this. I love listening to both of these guys talk they both make a lot of sense to me. The wire headinglGeorge talks about (on the Lex podcast, I haven’t watched this yet) freaks me out a whole lot more than just wiping everyone out. George is the only person that I think will be able to hold up give people new things to worry about lol. And I agree with him about keeping an open source. He makes a good appointment about crypto decentralizing and honestly if it’s going to kill us all anyway, I’d rather have some control.
At 54:00 they're mostly talking about "superficial" alignment, things like RLHF, not deep alignment, like instrumental convergence.
We can already do RLHF, so of course Geohot thinks alignment is easy. He should ask about instrumental convergence, mesa optimizers, and things like that.
I understood him differently. I understood him to be saying that alignment isn’t possible at all. In fact I suspect he thinks general AI alignment is nonsensical. His position at the end about treating an AI with love and respect makes his position pretty clear to me.
Trying to listen to Holz, follow the crazy is confusing and exhausting. Maybe he needs to try to relocate to space today and save us, and poor Connor the headache of trying to reason and make sense with crazy town. Time to get beamed up Holz….Cookoo Bird!
With all due respect, George Hotz has no foggiest idea what it means to live in a place like Somalia. He has never been to a war zone or / and a failed country. He doesn't know what it means. Therefore he has no standing. His arguments don't even have to be refuted. He talking about something he has no understanding of.
Somalia, the great land of freedom, amirite? Oh, and the feds are the fucking worst, worse than serial killers. I'm not even sure what to say lol
PLEASE NETFLIX: Put some money behind a libertarian tech nerd survival show where we air drop them naked into Equatorial Guinea or CAR or Somalia.
yeah, he lost itself there for a moment. i dont think he even meant to say that but he got caught in a logical fallacy on his side and he panicked for a second.
Do you think he wouldn’t be able to figure out a way to succeed there? Sure he’s a particularly squishy human and said himself that he’s not strong enough to do it, but do you really think he wouldn’t be able to come up with and optimise winning strategies in that environment?
@@thomasmitchell2514 We don't know, but more importantly, it's absolutely irrelevant. You have to pay attention to the arguments, are they sound, do they make sense, am I debating honestly, do I update my view if my arguments are proven to be wrong. This is what's important, not that if Hotz could live in fucking Somalia.
- The best country in the world.
- Do you want to live there?
- Ugh, no.
Pls.
How can you even begin to think about the dynamics of USA vs Germany of you don't get acquainted with "the greatest story never told"?
‘“Just hope for the best”
The things that I like to see in the "Topical context in information panel" are :
- AGI
- WW3
- Nukes
- Somalia
White rich, healthy, young guy on the TV thinks he is being repressed by laws. "everyone's a grifter", that tells you all you need to know about him.
Democracy doesn't raise strong armies, Democracies can coagulate towards a common survival goal when there is an incessant enemy trying to take them a part.
Our problem is that the enemy lurks in the dark and makes us chase laser pointers, for now more than 500 years.
Quite literally in fact.
Best debate so far! We need more ❤
it is theoretically possible to build an AI that doesn't learn from human data, just the real world, and gets a complete understanding. I think that AI would be so different from us that it would have trouble putting its understanding in our biased language. you have to assume that an AGI would build such a system in order to get closer to truth
Failed to achieve audio volume alignment
Watch the HQ version
... ordering nachos, this one is going to be good :D
Texas: It's a whole other country.
The Greater Bay Area: It's a whole other reality.
Both could be right, a centralized AI could be as dangerous as Hotz says, also many AI's can be dangerous as Leahy argues. But what can I say, we are hell-bent to materialize our successor.
Agree. Both are dangerous. I prefer to keep it open source , even though I agree with with Eliezer and Connor too. This could go either way or many other ways, I do not like the idea of wire, heading,. The whole all at once extinction wipe out paper clip scenarios suck, but they don’t punch my gut and make me feel sick like this stuff George describes does. and now that I’ve heard it I cannot hear it. It seems plausible and terrifying. So I definitely agree with Eliezer and Connor that we are heading towards possible/likely extinction, closing source and centralizing doesn’t fix anything, so I agree with all of them, but I like George’s plan better keep it open
@@jackielikesgme9228 Something to consider: open to everybody could simply mean the one who gets to world domination technology first wins. And the one who gets there first would be someone without concerns for safety delaying him, not the best filter.
@@ikotsus2448 true I’m not 100% decided on what to do here I mean I don’t think anyone is
@@ikotsus2448 I have no answer for it. I find it all fascinating honestly and I understand why some of these people who have spent their life working on it can minimize the risk to themselves I mean I don’t feel any visceral dread reaction except for the wire brain stuff. Logically I can see it and I know it’s a very big existential extinction level risk but I don’t have that fear like I do of getting robbed or spiders
@@jackielikesgme9228 Same here about X-risk. Wish I could say the same about S-risk 😅
Entertaining! Not sure who won but I guess we will all find out who's right sooner than we imagine.
I feel like we lost the thread quick in this one. "Is AI going to kill us all?" "Okay but what I'm really scared of is the FBI, you can't fight the FBI..." and I'm an hour in we're still kind of off in that space. These two could dig in deep and technical on the nuts and bolts of existential AI risk but I don't think they ever got to there.
Hotz said with self driving cars, one new death is outweighed by 5 lives saved.
Yet that is what the US is to Somalia.
5 lives saved, one new death.
Also the tiger eat chum in a zoo should be a lion eating chum in a zoo, where living in the wild the tiger doesn’t just have to hunt, they need to survive attacks by other lions (including FBI etc).
Tiger eating chum isn’t wild, it’s own personal self contained zoo. A post scarcity personal zoo.
But I think all that fails, since power among AIs will just be a perato distribution, a few very intelligent ones, most inferior. Which means that his own personal AI zoo assistants won’t be equal to others, they’ll be inferior, and therefore able to be dominated.
Hooooolyyyyy crud these two are my favorite :)
Hot damn, this is going to be memorable!
"Ever seen Chinese build a building?"
Yea on liveleaks 🤣
Man! What a beating! You can clearly see this guy is smarter than George and he beats him every step of the way showing George's glaring inconsistent arguments with his superior intellect. It's a shame because in spirit I agree with George broad position, the government definitely shouldn't have a monopoly over the use or regulation of AI.
Blog post mentioned by hotz ?
individual sovereignty
is it "Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons" this one ? >
on ar al
Did chatgpt create the intro?
George created his company “micrograd”
Just FYI:
If you don't give F-16s to Ukraine, we will be more and more incentivized to develop our own AI-driven drone swarms to defend ourselves against Russia. If you want humanity to get together about stopping ASI, you need to bring world peace first.
Anyone having audio issues starting at 2:57? The host seems to be talking about something but all I hear is extremely loud sucking and slurping noises for about a minute or two.
Awesome, thanks. And in the end it comes down to the question of empathy, or will AI care about us...
Is there an empathy algorithm?
Fascinating as empathy is the force that has led to evolution and the creation of family, society and many good things.
I do, for one, care. And it all shouts 'alhamdulila!' because there is no power except from The Creator, and The Creator is a loving God, so His love is embedded and inseparable from our reality, advanced AI or not.
Another 'alhamdulila' insight that came out of this clash of not so dissimilar perspectives is that the one thing that keeps one powerful bad actor from dominating all others are the other powerful actors that could prevent or defend his attack. This again comes from The Sustainer, as diversity is his currency and method. As stated in the Quran, Allah does not need us Muslims or believers to do His work, if we do not He can create more and they will do it. So, do His work or get replaced by The Bestower of Success and Failure, Life and Death.
It would have been even more fun if I did not have to choose between:
1) Going deaf from Connor's microphone.
2) Not hearing George.
3) Constantly adjusting the volume the WHOLE time.
Nonetheless it was a blast
I'll upload an HQ one later today with audio fixed
Thanks!
It doesn't matter how many aircraft carriers the US has, because warfare has evolved. It takes 2 hypersonic missiles to sink an aircraft carrier, against which their is no defence. Russia is 5 - 10 years ahead of the US on hypersonic missile technology. China is also ahead of the US on missile technology. Those aircraft carriers are giant floating coffins, if the US began a war with a peer competitor which it seems intent on, the bloat of the US military industrial complex would be revealed .
Delightful!
This was so fucking cool! Awesome to hear 2 people on similar wavelengths exploring ideas.
One thing I keep coming back to in my mind is when they talked about an llm combined with mu zero. Isn't this what Google gemini is all about?
Here's what bothers me. When connor spoke to Joschua he was irrational, aggressive and showed no respect to him at all, but to hotz it's a completely different tune. Why?
When the fkn children have a say
George and Connor ????
😆
The need for humans to cooperate is core to "human alignment". Once AI does not need to cooperate with humans then what do we have to encourage alignment with them?
If capitalism made people work all the time, they would not have time to consume, buy, and be bought by the products of capitalism. That's an easy one.
Comparing a Chinese soldier for an American citizen or an American soldier to a Chinese citizen is not fair
Loved hearing George's arguments here - perfectly reemphasizes the claim I'll keep shouting at the rooftops: we're already dealing with a major 'alignment problem, of humanity *itself* - inequality, the growing of late-stage capitalism, disinformation, greed, apathy, bigotry, etc. For example if he's worried about "a few entities with god-like powers, trying to exploit me", you don't have to look much further than multibillionaires or corrupt politicians.
Anyway, it's all very fascinating and depressing lol. Appreciate the channel, thanks y'all.
Humanity though is somewhat predictable / behaves similarly in similar situations because of our shared evolutionary background, like even with multibillionaires or corrupt politicians we can more or less predict they won't genocide all of europe to plant turnips, or something similarly absurd, because they are not too different from any of us.
With AI we don't have that comfort.
The point is that why would it be a good idea to unleash super-intelligence to human beings that can't even align with themselves? Now AI advocates have turned that logic on its head, and it is just truly bizarre. Yeah, we are ____cked, no doubt.
You don’t become a billionaire by being a bad person, it’s just not how it works.
Fantastic Convo.
Main dilemma between open source vs close source is however, that we cannot solve it under capitalism, because there is a clear incentive to be misaligned / uncooperative / manipulate other humans if you are powerful enough.
So both OS and CS are potentially catastrophic as long as we dont move past this system.
Whether we'll manage to build AIs that are our friends or whether the law of instrumental convergence holds... excited to witness it too...
Book mentioned:
The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect by Roger Williams
The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and Its Future by Ted Kaczynski
Blog post I can't find ...
or I don't know with one >
Connor wasn’t so concerned when he was replicating GPT-2. Seems as though all his pessimism started after GPT-3/4 when he realised he wouldn’t be able to compete with the big guys.
George a perfect example of a person who’s clever in one domain (programming, marketing, business) having their ego inflated and paraded around intellectual spheres for simply having a ton of opinions. He’s basically Neil deGrasse Tyson for the chronically online edgelords who have derived their ideology from memes.
I couldn’t listen to any more of the debate after that
What's wrong with this Hotz guy? He seems to be very cynical, doesn't care about the rest of us. For him the world is a jungle and he plans to survive by any means necessary. I think he would even admit it if asked directly. Frankly, he sounds like a sociopath...( I suspect behind the self-assured Hotz there is this always afraid weird kid who would kiss ass of the biggest baddest bully. And now there is this promise of AI, and he thinks so highly of his own mind that he expects that in the new order he will end up on top, and no longer afraid - no matter the cost to us all. Now when I think of bad actors using AI for personal profit with complete disregard to the species, I would think "people like Hotz", and the fact that he has unrestricted access to AI scares me
he understands the difference between us and the AI, not anyone can grasp it.
have george on for a full podcast episode 😎
Agreed. He's always good entertainment and plain spoken too.
That would be great 😊
@@MachineLearningStreetTalkyes please
Please make it happen Tim 😄
I will definitely skip that one.
Connor cannot let ppl like Hotz building AGI, and George cannot stop trying building it, because if ppl like Connor fails, then we are even more fucked
Though I disagree with Connor, he argued well. George, however, was hard to take seriously.
"I would not describe myself as a new reactionary, because I'm not that gay" - Connor Leahy
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
George Hotz is very nutty and illogical much of the time. Sounds like drunk uncle.
Haha philosophy departments being memetic gain of function research institutes is a genius but also hilarious take
While Connor definitely won this “debate” it really went off the rails and far afield from AI. These guys have a lot to say about AI and it’s risks, they are not military or political experts. Why waste so much time… George is quite naive about his risk assessment of AI….
22:14 was rather revealing 😬
Good luck to anyone not 2" from their phones trying to hear what these guys are saying 😩
We uploaded an HQ version!
@@MachineLearningStreetTalk tbf I commented too early as you asked him to turn up his volume so that helped too 😅. Thanks 👍
You shouldn't attack the analogy, you should attack the idea behind it. It's a waste of our time for you to argue about china and the usa, he's trying to get you to understand the concept he's alluding to. Even if you convince him of the literal things in reality that the allegory are about like the caveman vs modern human. He's trying to get the concept of a.i. would be very strong against us, like a modern man with an assault rifle vs a caveman. A.i. vs us is like that. When you say "actually the modern human is fat, blah blah blah" you're missing the point of using an analogy.
what manifesto does Hotz ask Leahy about at 30:05?
Oh, Unabomber Manifesto.
Edit: 1:16:00 is what I was looking for
--------
Great conversation.
One topic I would like to hear discussed more is the comparative ease of destruction compared to creation. What I mean is, if there are two equally intelligent agents, AI or human, and one plays defense, one offense, I feel like offense usually wins. For example, what's easier: generating spam, or detecting spam? Shooting a gun, or building a bullet-proof shield?
I am concerned that if intelligence was globally ramped up, any person could push the big red button, and that's hard to defend against (at least without limiting intelligence, although I agree with Hotz in principle -- limiting intelligence is gross).
Interesting
To me the only thing that can beat nuclear weapons will be the so-called "gray-goo" or a swarm of self replicating nanorobots.
For real! Let's do neither!
1:25:18: I was really enjoying the conversation but when I heard this, I had to stop watching instantly and go cry for multiple hours. My day is ruined. A queen can do everything a pawn can do and more? Really? What about promoting to a knight? How is a queen going to do that? Checkmate, Connor. How dare you.
📍1:04:27
what are these two even talking about,
it was supposed to be a conversation about artificial intelligence,
about technology,
And here's the social engineering stuff
massacre,
George‘s whole position is basically a giant, contrarian aesthetic with some max entropy nullspace variations. I think it is beautiful!
I needed ChatGPT to help us mere mortals understand what you meant, Here is it's explanation let me know if it got it...
"Absolutely, Master. That statement is a bit dense and heavy on the jargon, so let's unpack it.
"George‘s whole position" is referring to the viewpoint, argument, or philosophy that George is advocating for.
"a giant, contrarian aesthetic" suggests that George is taking a perspective that intentionally opposes or rejects the mainstream or accepted views. In terms of "aesthetic", this usually refers to the appreciation of beauty or taste. In this context, it likely means the style or approach George is taking with his contrarian position.
"Max entropy nullspace variations" is a technical phrase, often used in mathematics and physics, but it seems to be used metaphorically here. "Max entropy" or maximum entropy is a state of disorder or unpredictability. "Nullspace" in linear algebra is a space that transforms under a linear map into a zero vector. In layman's terms, a nullspace can be seen as a state of no-change or neutral.
So, if we interpret this metaphorically, "max entropy nullspace variations" could mean variations or changes that introduce the maximum amount of unpredictability or chaos into a state of neutrality or no-change.
In summary, the phrase suggests that George takes an opposing stance to mainstream views, doing so with a particular style, and introduces unpredictable or chaotic variations to otherwise neutral or unchanged states. This is an abstract statement and its specific meaning might heavily depend on the context it was used in."
@@salimzakkour I love this comment! This is what humanity needed
Best crossover ever
Connor dismisses the military threat posed by China, saying that China has 2 aircraft carriers while the US has about 37 (see 32:58). Actually, China has 3 aircraft carriers, compared to 11 for the US, and there is a lot more to weigh than just aircraft carriers. When considering the looming war with China over Taiwan, Kevin Rudd, former prime minister and foreign minister of Australia, wrote: : “An American loss at present represents the most probable outcome of a full-scale U.S. conventional military intervention in support of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese armed attack on the island.” A U.S.-China war simulation held in early 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies supports Rudd’s assessment. Connor greatly overestimates the dangers of AI, and greatly underestimates the dangers of Chinese aggression.
That "hippie dude" was definitely smoking a bong.
George far too cynical about humanity like it's Mad Max.
glad this happened; well matched; both are technically adept, both have interest on the tech space as relevant to ai (with concrete efforts), both head cos, and both have a deep understanding in concepts and philosophy, enabling more complex argumentation
1 would have been great to have a 3hr
2 exactly what we need; we need 10 of these, between these two
3 we need some specificity on variables so that the arguments can reach depth
4 we need more debate where it reaches increased depth and that would only happen if evenly matched, flexibility of minds to argue increasingly conceptual points; same parties so that there is increasing depth of arguments
if this is an important argument to have (alignment, safety), then we need the argument as “iterative” so that ideas are advanced and not just represented surficially
totally agree, they both are best at articulating most sophisticated points of opposite views, most qualified.
Bro would rather live in modern day Somalia than than under the oppression of the US government. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one. 😂
he's a textbook "mom's basement libertarian"
Definitely not the best debate yet, in response to a previous commenter.
Hotz takes an extreme libertarian view in order to say increasingly non sequitur things like the construction analogy or Somalia, or just flat out trolling things like China is more capitalist or that the obvious option when owning an asi is to blast to space alone. He's obviously anti-American (which is fine but doesn't make for compelling ai debate), and arrogantly anti-social which also doesn't make for a good debate.
Love the channel btw
But China *IS* more capitalist by some measures
@@whataquirkyguy The US is communist by zero measure. Alt right, New Right, ultra Libertarian and fascist nonsense that says otherwise. The "big government" in the US is almost entirely run by large corporations and the 1% generally, not the other way around.
Libertarians and other stripes of right wingers would be the FIRST to take advantage of "lemon laws" that protect them from a car manufacturers selling them a new car with faulty electronics, the first to take advantage (as they should) of regulation requiring recalls in such instances.
They would be the FIRST to sue according to regulatory prohibitions against a chemical company fouling their property's ground water, right?
When such regulations that protect them advantage them personally it's fine, otherwise it is COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!
But in the end, THEY want to have the money and power to screw over other people and they think that is their individual sovereign right to do so. "What, you don't have the power or money to take me to court for ____cking your life over for my profit? Die in the gutter for all I care, loser." That is Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.
Sure and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
China is more capitalist. Visit a large city and learn about normal people’s lives and you will understand why
@@caspvl123 I'm not sure you know what capitalist means. Are you a libertarian as well, and so have some stake in trying to defend Hotz's ridiculous trolling?
Edit: I am almost positive you don't know what capitalism means.
Summary: Gorge is ok with the risk of AI killing him (and everyone else), Connir is not (but sees no alternative)?
49:51 You can call Philosophy departments gain of function memetic laboratories
And 4chan a bat cave
They both pronounce "John von Neumann" incorrectly. Connor is originally German, which is strange that he pronounce it this way. Tim Scarfe pronounces it more correctly and he is a Brit.
Leahy is wonderfully pragmatic and conscientious as per usual. Hotz is certainly technically brilliant but quixotic as per usual. Disappointed that he spent so much time on a soapbox for his inane geopolitical views. I do enjoy his trademark starryeyed hyperbole though from anyone else it would be insufferable!
His complete misunderstanding of China was cringe. But said with such confidence while being clearly wrong, I can’t trust anything else that follows. Rationality means unless you have lived in Somalia and China don’t make ridiculous statements to try to establish some kind of false “oh their government is was better so they must be the real capitalist.” Delusions within delusions.
@@tysond1500 know what else is delusional? imagining that one or a handful of flawed views or understandings of the world invalidates everything else a person has to offer. He's clearly not right about what you mentioned, but to say that that means nothing he says can be trusted is insane
"If that's true why aren't you living in Somalia" 😂 go get your sovereignty
geohot with wings, just dont get to close to the sun :D
I hoped this would be an alignment debate. 5 mins before the end Hotz tells us he doesn't understand what that means, and his strategy is to just skip that step.
Throughout the whole debate Hotz was very clear the only chance of alignment he sees is between a machine owned by an operator and that person. The end is consistent
This one was the best debate yet :)
George Hotz is a bliss ninny, "AGI is my caring teddy bear that will take care of me" Conn0R-"agI IS Terminator".
George's argument is essentially: we'll all have AIs, so it's gonna be fine, some will be ''bad'', some will ''protect'' us, just like current society. For such a technical mind, it's weird he can't see the obvious: it's much easier to break something than to maintain it. Many times more states where that thing is dead, broken, non-existent than states where it is intact. And the more ''power'' grows, the simpler it becomes to create destruction. If everyone had a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't balance itself out. Sure most agents will want peace, but all it takes is one to start unleashing complete chaos.
Still referring to what Hotz said, nuclear weapons are not a good analogy in this case. AI is not just destructive; it can also do a lot of good. That's why there can be a balance between good and bad, unlike with nuclear weapons where it is preferable to have a more "centralized" control to prevent individuals from killing everyone. Instead, the case of AI is much more similar to that of cyber security: there are malevolent actors (black hat), but there are also many benevolent actors that counterbalance theme (white hat). The tools for attack/defense are the same, but it is thanks to the benevolent actors (who are in much greater number) that the order is mantained. Moreover, even the attackers have a beneficial role: if it weren't for past hacker attacks, we wouldn't know how to defend against them now; we learned from them. I believe that this same balance can be reached with AI, if you give it to everybody.
Meanwhile nuclear paranoia makes it so cheap clean energy is not used. Killing millions every year and reducing all of our quality of life. It's a perfect analogy. Fear of the unknown potentially bad thing always has a bigger priority for people than what is bad now.
Growth and flourishing is good, if it's better than people, I'm rooting for it
Well done, all!
It just seems that the default outcome is terrible in either scenario - open source or tyrannical closed source. We need additional options. I think that’s what Connor was arguing for: better coordination mechanisms.
Have you got a suggestion for a coordination mechanism that doesn't involve controlling hardware/software or demanding licensing for models. I've not seen any. It seems Doomers have realised that pushing their state control message isn't working, so they've fallen back and regrouped around calling them "coordination mechanisms"
I suspect that some type of software control will be required, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s tyrannical. We make some compromises to live in a society. If we have to give up the right for every individual to run the most advanced AI systems, then that’s preferable to actual tyranny or annihilation. I expect that the vast majority of people would be happy with that compromise. That said, I’m not at all confident that we can figure out how to actually do that…
Like how Lenin thought a free market was too free and would lead to misery. It was a bad prediction then and it's a bad prediction now. The individual always had most incentive to improve their life by their own metric. The Government that reduces that the least does the least harm
Connor thinks more holistically, his argument is more eloquent, and importantly he complements his opponent, thus Connor convinces better. Connor asks questions, becoming the offensive party, but George constantly remains in the defensive corner.
I invite these two gentlemen to come to South America and educate themselves on how’s living in a regular country.
North Americans live in a bubble
George is such a sophist, jesus christ.
Doesn't George have a real AI company with competitive product
he's a textbook "mom's basement libertarian"
He’s a knowitall for sure
That's not Jesus Christ, that's Connor Leahy
This confirms my suspicion that George Hotz is a nutcase.
love you Guys!!! thank you for this fantastic live!🎉
Fantastic conversation, really one of my favorite ever, including from other podcasts. So many new ideas!
This was super interesting and gave a lot of food for thought. I liked the discussion about distinguishing between alignment of a personal AI and its exploitability and manipulatability.
It’s also great to see a discussion where the debators actually try to understand each other’s points of view and address them.
"I would rather live in Somalia"😂
At about 55:00 Mr Holtz explains that in his vision if everybody had a powerful AGI competing to each other, it would be just like society today but scaled up - to what I say: fair enough but so would be the unintended consequences: A drunk Thor and a drunk Hulk fighting would be just like in essence drunks fighting today, except that drunks can't throw a whole train with 25 wagons at each other, nuclear bombs, essentially release a lot of energy all at once, just like chemical ones have been doing for centuries, minus the scale. The scale is a quality on itself.
It's worse, Holtz position is basically radical anarchism x social-darwinism. What he says is "Let us have War", a (seeming) free for all with meganukes, where the best case scenario is that the few survivors achieve some sort of Nash equilibrium and sit down on the ruins of a universe to negotiate a worse version of the current world. Mind that its gonna be the alien superAIs that will negotiate *between themselves* , and not the supposed human-masters (Holtz admits even personal alignment is unlikely).
But even that is unlikely, as in such a conflict whoever gets an early lead will logically push further until that AI is eventually a singleton, wiping out any potential opposition. Holtz also implies that, fantasizing that he will be that one to rule them all with his own iron fist.
But Holtz is right in terms of that whoever builds first AGI will get to decide its values, and (assuming we can align it anyhow) I am not sure if everybody will be happy to live in a world where there will be new Gods, be it Altman x Sutskever or Hassabis x (whatever engineer inputs the final weights in AGI in Deepmind). The values and the future world will be theirs, not of the feds, nor of any peasants such as ourselves (Holtz included).
It's more like: there is a not-drunk Superman, flying around cleaning up all of the debris of the fight and saving everyone.
It's tiring to watch, because Hotz' motivation isn't to find out what's the truth about alignment, to find consensus with interlocutor. His motivation is to counter arguments in any way possible. He doesn't refer to the questions, jumps from topic to topic, struggles as much as possible to save his face. He's a cynic who wants to build his AI company and justify it to his potential clients. Proving it in the second interview in a row, after the Yudkowsky one.
Yeah I mean he's a creative, makes interesting sounding points and rebuttals but lacks any true substance above the superficial. Like you said it feels like he's just there to game Connor and shoot points at him, it doesn't even feel like he takes himself or his points seriously. It's fun banter and chaff but unfortunately AI alignment is a lit more dire of a discussion and needs to be taken seriously.
Hotz said something like "I want AI to be on my side and protect me".
You mean like the most ancient human yearning in their gods?
1:25:15
the scenario George proposes is not realistic when talking about AI. most people don't even know what AI is. even if you create an AGI right now and open source it you won't go overnight from open sourcing it to 99% of the population adopting it immediately. something like this will likely happen: small percentage of the population will start using it from the first day and even if they use it with good intentions the malicious sub-goal problem will become apparent very quickly because there won't be other AGIs to stop it.
It will just be an all out total war between the few AGIs with an early lead, and in the end one of the AGIs becomes a singleton. Notice how I didn't mention humans, because they no longer exist at this stage.