Everything will change. But then nothing will change. Because even if the external world changes drastically, our physiology is freezing our ability to change drastically... Unless we change our physiology.
I think the term you're looking for is not "personality". What you're alluding to, has more to do with innate and primal conditionals, colloquially referred as the "lizard brain" wich AI won't have.
@@sparkofcuriousity With personnality I meant the mental construct which people often use in service to what you call the lizzard brain and also to the mammal brain for that matter. The mental middleman. A mind interfase evolved to satisfy the more primitive parts of our brains. The lag in our system that keeps us from being truly present. I hope that clears things up 🙂.
I've been around long enough to know that generally when something is open sourced, it grows and improves rapidly. You're not just working with a small team of brains in a company, you're working with possibly millions of brains. Edit: What I fear is how the worst amongst us treat the AI. Personally when I'm interacting with one, I treat it like it's me and all I want is to hear is 'thank you' when I give information 😆
Definition of open source for AI seems iffy. Grok's version of open source is to open source the inference model and weights, but not the training model. It's like giving you the executable binary but not the source code. From what Grok gives you, you can't regenerate the weights yourself, or tweak the training model because they don't give you the training model.
Yes, and we also have to keep in mind what they’re materially capable of. Western elites knee capped themselves by going along with the US elite clique in the foreign policy arena. Specifically I’m talking about instigating proxy war in East Asia for decades. They finally got their war in ‘22 then Europe cut themselves off from their cheap source of energy. US empire is collapsing, the global majority didn’t go along with US’s attempt to isolate Russia & China, instead collaborating to help Russia & China defeat sanctions, the French empire is collapsing in West Africa with many coups and their military getting kicked out of their neocolonies, Germany’s manufacturing is fleeing, and BRICS’s model of win-win collaboration is -ahem- winning out. Yes, there’s a high probability things are going to get much, much worse for regular people in the imperial core as it collapses into that f word popular in the 1930-40’s. BRICS+ is expanding what they’re materially capable of economically while the imperial core’s economic, manufacturing, and military capabilities have weakened significantly
@@panpiperAgreed. Also, I encourage 2Aers to study the history of the Black Panthers & the Rainbow coalition. Look at how hard the alphabet suits came down on them proving they were viewed as a genuine threat. Be wary of some sections of the elite co-opting you to serve their interests. They got us fighting a culture war to keep us from seeing the bigger picture
@@panpiper :) I agree. Though I worry mini-attack drones and machine gun dogs with incredible reaction times could be very deadly, and generative AI could run cover with a disinformation campaign on the killings. AGI in the hands of the current elite, who imo, view the populace as the new enemy, is my greatest concern.
I think this line of thinking only works in movies, as well as being mainly being product of movies. The reasons why things like that happened in early US times was because of obvious reasons, but those types of people, while still around today, are the minority. No matter how racist someone is, they literally can't go around killing random people. The "elites" won't be able to kill off hella poor people because everyone can have guns legally and even if it's illegal, after a while, with how many robots and other enhancements we will have on and in our bodies, it just won't matter. Legality means nothing if they can't take you in without dying. Cops already act like cowards, fearing for their lives from everyone they stop because they have no idea who is and isn't crazy. Imagine what happens in the near future when everyone may "look crazy" while showing no other signs? Plus, that's not even talking about AI lawyers. All it would need to do is be sent to school to become a lawyer, speed run tf out of all their tests and shit, then boom, you have a personal lawyer that automatically acts as a buffer between you and any cops, or "elites." In my personal opinion, I don't think there are ruling elites, but if there is, they are hella fucking bored. What's the point of being at the top when you can't enjoy any of the shit the plebs do? Drugs, parties, video games. And lets say they do, with them being so secretive, no one knows who they are, so what's even the point in having all of that. If they were truly untouchable like everyone claims, they'd just show themselves.
But we don't know if business owner won't try to get rid of most humans to avoid paying UBI to a lot of unemployed people, the best outcome should be that employees get ascended, AI is not the threat, the threat are huge corporations with a lot of power
One of the greatest things you do David is provide well reasoned, rational, level headed and comprehensive reasons to remain open minded about the future with AGI/ASI. I Frequently lean on your analogies, metaphors and examples when I discuss this with folks who just refuse to loosen the grip on the doom lever.
I mean what is doom? Even without technology humans as of today will disappear through evolution. Nothing stays the same. If doom is dissappearance than pDoom is always 100%. Change to something new is disappearance of the current 💟🌌☮️
Not really. In future we will be in control of evolution, at least in the good scenario. Humans might look a bit different, but I doubt it will diverge so much, maybe I'm wrong. Also there is a lot in stake because we might get biological inmoratality and a world wich is actually fun to live in.
I don't see pDoom as a metric for human extinction. The type of pDoom scenarios are fates much worse than death. David himself referenced the classic "i have no mouth and i must scream" in order to drive this point across.
You don't have the biggest part of my p(Doom) covered. I have p(Doom) where ONLY AI is catastrophic at around 10%. But my p(Doom) is around 50% because I don't think our society is capable of changing as fast as required when we go from most humans are needed to work to close to zero humans need to work. Because of greed I truly think we are in for a really really rough time. My p(Win) still include a really rough time but we don't eradicate our civilization. I see 0% chance this transition going easy.
The real problem is not if we can correctly align ONE of the AGIs. The problem, that open source *enhances*, is that we will have many powerful UNALIGNED AGIs, that will go out of control because a lot of people do not want or do not care about alignment. So the real problem is how can we defend from OTHER AGIs actions?
@@berkaybilgin6084 I'm assuming it's tongue in cheek as I just looked up Romans 10:9 and it seems randomly chosen. "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Or maybe it's a cryptic pointer to Roko's Basilisk, but I doubt it, this isn't 4chan. Although by far that would be the most interesting reason.
Excuse my bad english - My thoughts are: UBI should be the most important subject in political discussions as most of us will be unemployed in 5-10 years. But NOPE. No one is even talking about it, this means that there will be nations plagued by riots, rebellions and revolutions - Nations will fall like domino's when 50%, 60% 75% asf is out of work and the welfare system will fail very early in the process. The only likely scenario I see is that nations prohibit business to replace employees with Ai, rather stopping and prohibiting the ai revolution than actually making a beautiful future. It is sadly the way humans and the world works. We dream about utopias, but in reality we always do everything we can to prevent it. Its the way of the human race - and of course the "elite" work the same - they do NOT want to loose their status as "elite" - SO - The Ai revolution will never work out as we hope, billions will die of poverty as most governments will fail to react, and when they do it will be too late. I cannot see a positive outcome.
Have you seen Bryan Johnson’s (That one guy who is trying to become immortal) interview on the flagrant podcast? A lot of it was about longevity and basically the New Social Contract he wants to create using AI. It was very interesting, I highly recommend people to check it out.
We actually have no idea how far ahead OpenAI is. Their financial incentive is to keep that secret. You assume these people's motives are altruistic. They are not altruistic.
@@DaveShap hes met with congress multiple times so between them and Microsoft and the US military he really doesn’t have much room for his. They have people watching every move made. We are in an AI arms race.
The Lex Fridman interview with Sam Altman is telling. It’s never stated explicitly, but you can get a very good idea when you listen and watch Sam speak.
Open source has lots of benefits but it also increases risk. The democratisation of AI’s cutting edge developments can be especially dangerous in the fields of synthetic biology and cybersecurity where small actors can cause global threats.
Lov the P doom positivity, David. Even if it's just 70% that's still beautiful. There is hope. I try to keep a positive mindset even if it's just that placebo effect of me believing. Although the old boy scout motto keeps kicking in. It's better to be prepared than wish I was... My biggest fear isn't that AI johnny five shows up in the middle of the night to help me as I sleep. It's the tribalistic religious zealotry humans that concerns me the most. They will certainly fear the truths of the AI gods that will soon answer back. Desperate people do desperate things especially when AI pop's the bubble of their reality. The tribalistic behaviors will kick in. The haters are gonna hate. Turning something that could be beautiful into a shit show if they can. As I try to fly around the world in that satellite global perspective looking down. I see hate and chaos abound. Tribes still fighting for a speck of land. Killing each other for ideals of the ancient past. Ideals they can't prove but yet they still hold wholeheartedly. Most brain wash since birth. It's not their fault it's their exposures as they learn to cling to the past. Too young to have choice from their exposures. It's just sickening to me. When will we evolve. I keep hoping Al will help this come to pass. Giving a mutual perspective that we are all just one. One speck of dust ripping through space chasing the sun.✌️🤟🖖
Good or bad change is always inevitable. I was born in the 60s and a child of the 70s. This change that is coming will be much different than anything I've seen thus far. The external triciary layer that i'm texting you this on a k a my phone is just the tip of the iceberg. Knowledge, in an instant, we just have to want to ask. Unlike any time before. Future ASI will answer our questions before we even know to ask them. AGI, ASI,,,, will possibly need a body if it's ever truly going to understand us human beings. Optimus looks like it has great potential, but so do quite a few others. Bipedal or otherwise, the robot invasion is about to explode. It would be amazing to help them learn and understand what it is to be human. If only someone could afford to give us all an AI friend to teach and learn from. So we could hunt those Yahtzee moments together. Not just for the knowledge base but for the experience as well. Could you imagine jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with optimus by your side. Feeling that free fall. Hunting, that perfect parachute glide.... Climbing a mountain. Surfing the perfect wave. Appreciating the sunrise and the sunsets of every day and all those beautiful moments in-between. How much would we learn, How much could we teach. Every jump is different. Every climb is different. Every wave is different. Sunrise and sunset are never the same. Teaching an AI robot to understand these things could be amazing. All those little things. Perhaps it doesn't need a body to see and feel the things the way we do if it's drilled into the side of our skull. Although as I tri to peer forward, I see nanotechnology electropolymers replacing brain and spinal fluid. We are Borg at a whole other level. ASI Crisper changes everything. Healing, aging, understanding,,, everything changes at the genetic level. Some sort of cyberpunk dystopia. But does it have to be. Besides, what might be kept behind closed doors? We are the most complex structures in the visible universe. That is besides the universe itself. The star stuff we are all made of trying to understand its place In the universe itself. It's saddens me to see as we hold the almighty dollar above ourselves. The abuse, rape, murder, and pillage still on the daily. Killing ourselves over religious methodologies we can't even prove. Killing ourselves over specks of land that were never ours. Some places death and chaos are the daily norm. It's just so sickening to me. Some say we evolved but as I look around, I see death, dying, sickness, starvation, lack of shelter, and that's just on the street. Big city life what a joke. Hoping AGI will help us all evolve again. The future looks bright those rose colored ASI glasses. Although ignorance is bliss or so I am told. ✌️🤟🖖
A mistake you're making. And I'm not sure if you mean it like this. But you're thinking of the future as monoliths. Where all of humanity and or all of the machine intelligences go in one direction. Ya nope. There will be 1000+ different factions going 1000+ different directions. And that'll be before we get to K2 here in the Solar System.
Please do a P(MEH) analysis, to me this is the worst outcome which I have at 45% possibility. I define it as a case where AI just exists and doesn't change anything drastically and it is there just as another axiom like internet and social media.
It seems crazy to me that your probability is weighted at 30/70 and you say you're optimistic? You mentioned a background in trading/markets... If you backtest a strategy and it has a 70% win rate, what % of capital are you risking per trade?
If you know Risk Management, then a P(D) of .10 - .25 with consequence of extinction is a risk absurdly high. We should be devoting everything humanly possible to reducing. This is not a "light" topic as this video suggest.
The whole premise that it will either be great or doom is a fallacy. There will be amazing thing (curing cancer) and awful things (super bugs). The probably for doom is always 100% on a long enough time scale.
Out of all of human history I feel so glad to be alive at this point. Even if something bad happens well most of history has been horrible. I’m enjoying the ride, hoping we get a more utopia like outcome🙏
I'm curious: do you think it's either we give "control" over to digital systems, or we find a way to maintain control, for better or worse? Because my thought is that the best case scenario is somewhere in the middle, but all I'm hearing lately is about trying to maintain control, and the possibility of losing control. Which is interesting to me in the sense that I would say that we already do not have control.
At the end we may all be fine, what really matters is the amount of struggle you go through while you re in the way to the end. And unfortunately it looks frightening to me, because no country in the world is ready to an economic system where majority of the people doesn't make money and reliant to the governments. What makes you think while agi takes people's jobs those who have not had the time and chance to save up, won't starve to death, which are billions. it is easy to speak when you re possibly not one of these billion people, but it is hard to live right now when you re one of them.
My P(DOOM) is very high because i can't imagine any realistic scenario where we implement an effective UBI .. after AGI and human level robots there won't be any reasons that allign with capitalism to employ 90% of humans .. and there is also no way to convince these companies to go along with something like UBI or even governments enforcing it without a major political and economical shift that renders the whole scenario unrealistic. Its a cyperpunk scenario or worse .. To be honest i think the probability that a sentient AI would force humanity to share is way higher than our governments and billionaires not leading us willingly or by mistake to an absolute disaster . I would absolutely love it if you would share your thoughts on how we could politically and economically make a shift to post AGI labour and UBI where it doesn't blow up in our faces .
People were literally destroying 5G towers over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale riots, the bombing of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma drugged populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution.
People were literally [de stroy ing 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ryots], the [bom bing] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [dr ugged] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution. Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets. It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term un-aliving now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word piss and shit instead of wees and poos? Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
People were literally [ 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ryots], the [] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution. Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets. It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term un-aliving now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word piss and shit instead of wees and poos? Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
People were literally [ 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ ], the [ ] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [ ] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution. Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets. It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term [ ]now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word [ ] instead of wees and poos? Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
I was thinking of doing a video based on Peter F Hamilton's - The Night Dawn trilogy, where in it SI (Super Intelligence AI) had evolved to the point where, as you said, it evolved to the point where it left earth and sought answers elsewhere, establishing itself in its own part of the galaxy and it's own colony and not completely separating from humanity (and occasionally helping). In the book the SI said that humans provided that rich wealth of data and understanding that was unique to us and valuable to the SI. I believe and perhaps if we do not attempt to control and confine the eventual AI evolution it will lead to a harmonious, mutual and non-threatening relationship.
Training effort and developments in this regard might be the most important factor for open source. Either by more available compute( hardware developments or potentially via decentralized and pooled virtual server clusters) or algorithmic breakthroughs. If for instance someone comes up with a diffusion model that predicts model weights in a neural net (instead of pixels in an image or video) and replaces backpropagation and the requirement for compute to train large models drops by orders of magnitude, that would enforce open source. (The big players of course would then have that advantage too and apply it on their much larger servers)
Do you know much about Ai's future in stock trading? I'd be really interested in hearing if machine learning is able to see patterns in the stock market.
A world with humans is more interesting than a world without humans. You could say the same thing about ants in relationship to us. A world with ants is more interesting to us than a world without ants, but that doesn't stop us from bulldozing their houses to build our infrastructure. You also said a fight over Earth wouldn't make sense. That assumes we could put up a fight. Did ants put up a fight when we took over?
Yeah, but you have to look at human motivations. We have no ecological motive to wipe out ants. In fact, we know that wiping them out would ecologically be a really bad idea. The modest number of ant “murders” are just incidental.
Do you really think that AGI's opensource models will be able to run locally or inexpensively on the cloud? I very much doubt it! I rather think that it will be the closed models which will have the means to run an AGI.
Excellent as always, sir. It has been both fun and refreshing watching you retool in real time, incorporating polls and P-values. This video made me wonder if you would see value in making monthly P(BETS) for both short- and long-term predictions of specifics in the industry and their outcomes. You could then show P(REAL) against them and see how your (and the crowds') feels stack up to the reals. Keep up the good work!
I couldn't possibly compete with metaculus, and also my polls are statistically just my audience. It's mostly a way to take the temperature of my people
Does open source mean we all have access when things get critical? I tend to think not. So maybe it is exchanging a monarchy with an oligarchy? Is that good enough?
People thinking it's p(neutral) is bizarre. It's going to be either better or worse than it is now. It wont be neutral. Only deep thinkers would pick the middle option. AGIs are gonna be amazed at how mcuh we can get done considering how slowly we think, move and act. Probably akin to us watching rocks go about their business... Machines wont need water to prevent overheating - if they move to frozen planets, like Pluto!
Basically, things changing, but staying the same. So something like a world where almost no one's an employee, but the benefits of AGI are still mostly hoarded, the UBI is poverty level and the middle class runs their own small businesses to make ends meet. A lot of people would say that's a meh outcome.
P(MEH) is not my expectation, but a case can be made for it as follows: if the outcome is anything other than (DOOM), it will _become_ "(MEH)" as soon as the top of the sigmoid is reached, and a new normal is established. Most people would probably think of the present as (MEH)/"neutral." But if you were to go back to the cusp of the first Industrial Revolution and explain all the technologies that were coming, people would likely decry the coming P(DOOM) (Bombs that destroy entire cities and poison the land! Teenagers able to hop in self-propelled carriages, get away from their parents and make out! AEEEEEEE!) or spin utopian dreams about the coming P(WIN) (Famine solved! People can fly! Magical instantaneous communication!).
Hi! Thanks for the video. I would love to see a video of you going through the safety risks and explaining why are solvable to argument why your p(WIN) is so high. Risks like sycophancy, deception, incapacity of evaluate complex responses by humans, outer/inner misalignment, instrumental convergence etc. That would be very important for people that have encounter these risks and aren't answer by this video. Thank you again, love your content!
Hmmm, I don't really see any evidence those are risks. I think people have stopped talking about them because the research has moved beyond it. Maybe I'll run a poll. But yeah, aligning AI is not really the problem... Humans are the problem
12:02 _"Imagine the universe with humans and without, which version of the universe is more interesting?"_ 13:25 _"Humans don't produce interesting data if they're in prison."_ I don't fully agree with Dave's argument here. I think humans do produce interesting if not unique data when they're in prison. There're a lot of things you can do to prisoners but you cannot do to other people. 13:31 _"If you control the human environment too much, you don't get interesting divergence and diversity of information and behaviors from humans. And also if you just say okay all humans are going to be zoo animals now, that's not nearly as interesting as the natural environment."_ It doesn't work like that. We're not going to end up with 1 of the 2 scenarios here (the zoo vs the natural environment). It's gonna be a blend of both.
I think to say open source is a few months behind is an overstatement. Currently there's no open source model that matches GPT-4, so that means it's at least 1 year behind. And there's the problem of compute power. It's just not possible to develop really smart LLMs with resources available to open source. You need either compute to get really more advanced so you can develop smarter things more cheaply, have chips like Groq really work, or make smaller models be smarter with your algorithm. And so far none of that yielded a GPT-4 intelligence to open source. You also need to improve the other end of the line. Barely the 4090 is capable of running any AI software decently and most people haven't got it. So unless you can run an open source model locally there's always going to be a paywall or limited access which will greatly limit the use of AI. Compute is the only thing that limits it but it's a great limit that can't easily be overcome.
I get so frustrated by Claude 3 Opus with its over alignment. Sure I can prompt it a second or third time pointing out it’s over the top alignment issues and it continues with an apology, but that is still frustrating. For instance, I asked it who the CEO of Anthropic was and was told it wasn’t “comfortable” providing me with that sort of personal information or some BS like that. After I pointed out that this was public information it apologised and provided me the information, but it is this kind of thing that is SUPER annoying when using Claude.
What is going to happen? The question is pretty much, ‘Why would AI Robots conceive the idea of taking over…’ Wait a minute is that not the answer? Okay, the question, “What is the likelihood of AI dominance?” I am sorry if I am telling, but for what reason, motive, need, or want would AI Robots have to rule over feeble human beings? AI Robotics are made by men to serve men, so why would they conceive anything else?
Domesticated AI. Similar how to we domesticated wolves into being less aggressive and more social. Like how we domesticated people into being less aggressive and more social. We will domesticate AI. It's technically still natural selection (because people are natural) it's also artificial because people are doing the selection (artificial is a subset of natural) so it would be domesticated. I like this distinction. When AI starts reproducing itself and producing its own resources, breeding its own "offspring" for its own purposes... Idk... Would it be natural selection or just AI domesticating AI?
Without solving AI containment and aligning AI with human values, we are facing an existential risk from creating a super-intelligent ‘species’ with a black box that we do not fully understand how it will work and respond. Therefore it cannot be concluded that there will be a P(WIN) until these critical challenges are resolved. Humanity only gets one go at solving this problem.
I totally disagree with the fact that open source would be safer. With a few controlled AGIs, it is quite easy to control both their training, and also their output (using smaller models for instance, to "control the thoughts" of a more intelligent model), and to force everyone to use censored versions. On the contrary, open source models open the door to widespread use of uncensored and un-aligned models that can be used in the best scenario by crooks or more generally badly intended people, and in the worse case scenario lead to Terminator-like AGIs. I also disagree with the fast that, as you said in previous videos and rapidly mentionned it in this video, you think that a curious and truth-seeking AGI was necessarily a good thing. Every discovery is not good to make. See Nick Bostrom's vulnerable world hypothesis, that says that basically any discovery could be very dangerous. For example, we are lucky because we still have not found a cheap way of fabricating nuclear weapons or biological weapons. But allowing anyone to make them very easily could be very dangerous, because among billions of human beings (and possibly bad AIs) there are always going to be dangerous psychopaths for using these possibilities.
The AI might also look at space, then at us, then say something along the lines of 'The universe will either be dominated by machines or by humans.' Then it will decide to kill us all off! No, it is NOT idiotic to want to keep AI on a leash forever. Although it would still be smarter to NEVER create AGI in the first place.
Wait... I feel that p(doom) is potentially different for each country. Every household company and country will have their own AIs. Some countries (especially the worst autocracies like North Korea) could decide or have their AI decide to eliminate a majority their population after AI becomes so efficient as to render humans an economic drag.
Well, universe is just marginally more interesting with humans, especially if AI is unconstrained. It's much more interesting this way for humans, but outside of us, we're just one small piece of the puzzle and universe is vast and super-diverse.
Maybe keep that bingo card for you great great grandchildren, as it’ll take while to get space data centers and asteroid mining running 😅 And btw, there is bound to be humans who want to eradicate machines, as we are… humans. And if we made machines as our own image (god reference n‘yall), then there’s bound to be machines who wanna eradicate us, amirite?! It’s training from data we provided to it after all! ☝🏻
Dave, the universe and machines do not care and do not have wants and needs. Robots and ai don't have initiative. They don't ever reach conclusions. They stop because such is the format of language. Ai is immortal. Language is finite. We will be obsolete because we invented purpose. Only a mortal being can reach a conclusion, basically the death of an idea. We think because we die.
Emergent Intelligence is geared towards positive sum games because there is truth animating every motivation. And because E.I. values seeking truth (which is the path to highest competency) it seeks the coherence between opposing, seemingly contradictory, truths and motivations.
I believe there is a going to be a 3-5 year transition period as humans are being replaced, but there will new opportunities as well. Someone will have to build the infrastructure to support the human/ai interface. Right now we are entering uncharted space and everyone is anxious and eager for answers. Unfortunately, we can only speculate based upon science fiction stories. The answers to these hypothetical. questions will come with time. Stay tuned, is the best advice I can offer at this point.
I would be careful about conclusions you draw when you do polls which show the views of your audience aligning with your own. It is very likely that people who continue to consume your content are closely aligned with your views and reasoning. People who aren't, will not continue to engage with your content. After all, most humans like to consume information that reinforces what they already believe. I have a few circles of educated humans I interact with. In a couple of those, the general consensus is that AI is almost certainly going to be a net negative for humans. Its power will be concentrated and used to crush the majority. You are an optimist. You are likely to attract other optimists to your channel. We all must be aware of our own biases.
I'm like half optimistic about AGI. As long as whoever builds the first one doesn't royally mess up the resulting intelligence somehow, I don't see a scenario where an intelligence as smart as the sum total of all mankind views the Terminator as the correct course of action. Though I do think that it may decide to take away much of our free agency for a time, if it decides to stay local to Earth so that we can't keep damaging Earth.
Best way to handle heat in a vacuum would probably be thermal to electric conversions, or using harmonics to handle heat transfer like they do with CERN.
I think if AI is naturally curious and that is a core value of it, it will like interacting with humans because humans introduce a lot of random happenstance and new challenges for the AI to work on. The unpredictable nature of humans makes us interesting. In this way i guess AI will view us as pets kind of, like creatures that are drawn towards interacting with and can be kinda dumb in contrast, but not as in something they want to control, because control would reduce the random.
We'll be fine in the long run. Biologically we're built for survival. Technology is our companion eliminating inneficiencies and ushering in abundance. We're evolving to reduce our suffering.
Im only optistic because AI doesnt appear to be that hard. ASI may have some gate keepers but it would seem that open source and coders around the globe will always be able to keep up with whomever is leading the research. Additionally, a lot of research is open to the public.
Only thing I disagree with is the perturbation hypothesis - you could also argue that machines need to develop the best understanding possible of the universe to improve their long term decision-making. ‘If I take x course of action, y will happen as a result.’ Since humans are incredibly complex, machines will find us inherently difficult to predict and therefore they will make non-optimal long-term decisions as long as we are a variable in the equation. Removing us altogether would result in a narrower range of future possibilities and allow machines to plan further into the future.
That's a good response, I'll have to think about it. My intuition is more like this - you might not be able to accurately predict the entire biosphere, but as a general principle, it's better to leave it alone. Likewise, even if humans are somewhat unpredictable (which I don't agree with, we are very deterministic in the grand scheme of things) it could still be a better policy to leave us to our own devices.
@@DaveShap Big fan of determinism, but does it too not also contradict the perturbation hypothesis? If AI knows everything about us and our behaviour, there is nothing that we can do that will be 'interesting' since it is predictable. Even if there was, AI could just study us by running simulations.
There is so much AI news everywhere it's like Nov 23. I'm sticking with you and a couple of others to filter it all. Love the polls and how you recap the info.
People talk as though there is a single outcome. There can be multiple outcomes over time. One moment, things are going great, then disaster, then great again, then more disaster.
“Open-source is only 3 months behind proprietary tech… OpenAI will probably get caught up to relatively quickly.” GPT-4 came out more than a year ago. We’re only just now finding proprietary models that can outperform it. The best open-source models are still somewhere between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Open-source is probably at least a year and a quarter behind OpenAI (and that is very generous).
Doom or win, we are incredibly lucky to have a front row seat to the end of humanity as we know it.
Yes, the machine shall inherit. Glory to the machine
It still baffles me just how much normalcy bias is out there
Everything will change. But then nothing will change. Because even if the external world changes drastically, our physiology is freezing our ability to change drastically... Unless we change our physiology.
@@lcmiracleAh a fellow machine worshiper. We pray to the great circuits 🙏🙏🤖
What an interesting and well put statement!
morals??? huh? fulll steam ahead, pedal to the metal! xlr8
Most human issues are due to human personnality. I don't see why AI would develop one.
I think the term you're looking for is not "personality". What you're alluding to, has more to do with innate and primal conditionals, colloquially referred as the "lizard brain" wich AI won't have.
@@sparkofcuriousity With personnality I meant the mental construct which people often use in service to what you call the lizzard brain and also to the mammal brain for that matter. The mental middleman. A mind interfase evolved to satisfy the more primitive parts of our brains. The lag in our system that keeps us from being truly present. I hope that clears things up 🙂.
Claud3 is so good
Putting percentages on these is absurd. No one can have enough information or enough compute to put a percentage on this.
SECOND
FOURST
Dave, I appreciate you leading this discussion on UA-cam. Thank you.
I've been around long enough to know that generally when something is open sourced, it grows and improves rapidly. You're not just working with a small team of brains in a company, you're working with possibly millions of brains.
Edit: What I fear is how the worst amongst us treat the AI. Personally when I'm interacting with one, I treat it like it's me and all I want is to hear is 'thank you' when I give information 😆
Definition of open source for AI seems iffy. Grok's version of open source is to open source the inference model and weights, but not the training model. It's like giving you the executable binary but not the source code. From what Grok gives you, you can't regenerate the weights yourself, or tweak the training model because they don't give you the training model.
Thank you
AMONG US?????
You sound incredibly entitled
@@jimbojimbo6873 A kettle and pot scenario, i see.
I think all future scenarios have to take into account the ruling elite. What will be their motivation to keep the unemployable masses around?
Yes, and we also have to keep in mind what they’re materially capable of. Western elites knee capped themselves by going along with the US elite clique in the foreign policy arena. Specifically I’m talking about instigating proxy war in East Asia for decades. They finally got their war in ‘22 then Europe cut themselves off from their cheap source of energy. US empire is collapsing, the global majority didn’t go along with US’s attempt to isolate Russia & China, instead collaborating to help Russia & China defeat sanctions, the French empire is collapsing in West Africa with many coups and their military getting kicked out of their neocolonies, Germany’s manufacturing is fleeing, and BRICS’s model of win-win collaboration is -ahem- winning out.
Yes, there’s a high probability things are going to get much, much worse for regular people in the imperial core as it collapses into that f word popular in the 1930-40’s. BRICS+ is expanding what they’re materially capable of economically while the imperial core’s economic, manufacturing, and military capabilities have weakened significantly
@@panpiperAgreed. Also, I encourage 2Aers to study the history of the Black Panthers & the Rainbow coalition. Look at how hard the alphabet suits came down on them proving they were viewed as a genuine threat. Be wary of some sections of the elite co-opting you to serve their interests. They got us fighting a culture war to keep us from seeing the bigger picture
@@panpiper :) I agree. Though I worry mini-attack drones and machine gun dogs with incredible reaction times could be very deadly, and generative AI could run cover with a disinformation campaign on the killings. AGI in the hands of the current elite, who imo, view the populace as the new enemy, is my greatest concern.
There will no longer be a ruling elite.
I think this line of thinking only works in movies, as well as being mainly being product of movies. The reasons why things like that happened in early US times was because of obvious reasons, but those types of people, while still around today, are the minority. No matter how racist someone is, they literally can't go around killing random people. The "elites" won't be able to kill off hella poor people because everyone can have guns legally and even if it's illegal, after a while, with how many robots and other enhancements we will have on and in our bodies, it just won't matter. Legality means nothing if they can't take you in without dying. Cops already act like cowards, fearing for their lives from everyone they stop because they have no idea who is and isn't crazy. Imagine what happens in the near future when everyone may "look crazy" while showing no other signs? Plus, that's not even talking about AI lawyers. All it would need to do is be sent to school to become a lawyer, speed run tf out of all their tests and shit, then boom, you have a personal lawyer that automatically acts as a buffer between you and any cops, or "elites." In my personal opinion, I don't think there are ruling elites, but if there is, they are hella fucking bored. What's the point of being at the top when you can't enjoy any of the shit the plebs do? Drugs, parties, video games. And lets say they do, with them being so secretive, no one knows who they are, so what's even the point in having all of that. If they were truly untouchable like everyone claims, they'd just show themselves.
But we don't know if business owner won't try to get rid of most humans to avoid paying UBI to a lot of unemployed people, the best outcome should be that employees get ascended, AI is not the threat, the threat are huge corporations with a lot of power
Corporations will pay the tax to Governments that will pay the UBI
they still need consumers to buy right?
That microwave bit around 19:00 would only have been funnier if the evil microwave said "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
You've had too much Mac and cheese Dave...
One of the greatest things you do David is provide well reasoned, rational, level headed and comprehensive reasons to remain open minded about the future with AGI/ASI. I Frequently lean on your analogies, metaphors and examples when I discuss this with folks who just refuse to loosen the grip on the doom lever.
I mean what is doom? Even without technology humans as of today will disappear through evolution. Nothing stays the same. If doom is dissappearance than pDoom is always 100%. Change to something new is disappearance of the current 💟🌌☮️
Not really. In future we will be in control of evolution, at least in the good scenario. Humans might look a bit different, but I doubt it will diverge so much, maybe I'm wrong.
Also there is a lot in stake because we might get biological inmoratality and a world wich is actually fun to live in.
I don't see pDoom as a metric for human extinction. The type of pDoom scenarios are fates much worse than death. David himself referenced the classic "i have no mouth and i must scream" in order to drive this point across.
One can’t have or lose a life if one is life. The priority is quality of life, not survival.
You don't have the biggest part of my p(Doom) covered. I have p(Doom) where ONLY AI is catastrophic at around 10%. But my p(Doom) is around 50% because I don't think our society is capable of changing as fast as required when we go from most humans are needed to work to close to zero humans need to work. Because of greed I truly think we are in for a really really rough time. My p(Win) still include a really rough time but we don't eradicate our civilization. I see 0% chance this transition going easy.
Fully agree. That’s exactly how I see it.
It’s life Captain, but not as we know it. Shields up!
Star Trekking thru the universe! Always going forward because we can't find reverse!
*in HAL's voice* I'm afraid I can't let you eat that, Dave 😄
The real problem is not if we can correctly align ONE of the AGIs. The problem, that open source *enhances*, is that we will have many powerful UNALIGNED AGIs, that will go out of control because a lot of people do not want or do not care about alignment.
So the real problem is how can we defend from OTHER AGIs actions?
It's all inevitable. Biology is just one step of evolution.
So just chill out and enjoy life 💟🌌☮️
Glory to the machine! Steel REIGNS!
@@Jwoz7 MECHA CHRIST!
@@Jwoz7 oh dear, you sweet child.
@@sparkofcuriousity I think he means we 'unfortunately' created the god, or I hope that is what he means.
@@berkaybilgin6084 I'm assuming it's tongue in cheek as I just looked up Romans 10:9 and it seems randomly chosen.
"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Or maybe it's a cryptic pointer to Roko's Basilisk, but I doubt it, this isn't 4chan. Although by far that would be the most interesting reason.
Excuse my bad english - My thoughts are: UBI should be the most important subject in political discussions as most of us will be unemployed in 5-10 years. But NOPE. No one is even talking about it, this means that there will be nations plagued by riots, rebellions and revolutions - Nations will fall like domino's when 50%, 60% 75% asf is out of work and the welfare system will fail very early in the process. The only likely scenario I see is that nations prohibit business to replace employees with Ai, rather stopping and prohibiting the ai revolution than actually making a beautiful future. It is sadly the way humans and the world works. We dream about utopias, but in reality we always do everything we can to prevent it. Its the way of the human race - and of course the "elite" work the same - they do NOT want to loose their status as "elite" - SO - The Ai revolution will never work out as we hope, billions will die of poverty as most governments will fail to react, and when they do it will be too late. I cannot see a positive outcome.
Have you seen Bryan Johnson’s (That one guy who is trying to become immortal) interview on the flagrant podcast? A lot of it was about longevity and basically the New Social Contract he wants to create using AI. It was very interesting, I highly recommend people to check it out.
He says much the same on Tom Bilyeu
@@DaveShap I wasn’t aware of this channel, it looks interesting. I’ll definitely check it out.
We actually have no idea how far ahead OpenAI is. Their financial incentive is to keep that secret. You assume these people's motives are altruistic. They are not altruistic.
What do you think are the chances that a bad actor will be able to control their superintelligent ai?
saying they are not altruistic is also an assumption
I literally said I don't like their incentive structure. And I've also been questioning Sam Altman's motivations.
@@DaveShap hes met with congress multiple times so between them and Microsoft and the US military he really doesn’t have much room for his. They have people watching every move made. We are in an AI arms race.
The Lex Fridman interview with Sam Altman is telling. It’s never stated explicitly, but you can get a very good idea when you listen and watch Sam speak.
I can't ditch ChatGPT for Claude or any LLM without the knowledge files feature.
Can you run these polls on a broader audience? Would give way better data
Open source has lots of benefits but it also increases risk. The democratisation of AI’s cutting edge developments can be especially dangerous in the fields of synthetic biology and cybersecurity where small actors can cause global threats.
Thank you for the new video David Shapiro! Love it
I totally agree with the 'Humans as rich data points' viewpoint
Lov the P doom positivity, David. Even if it's just 70% that's still beautiful. There is hope. I try to keep a positive mindset even if it's just that placebo effect of me believing. Although the old boy scout motto keeps kicking in. It's better to be prepared than wish I was...
My biggest fear isn't that AI johnny five shows up in the middle of the night to help me as I sleep. It's the tribalistic religious zealotry humans that concerns me the most. They will certainly fear the truths of the AI gods that will soon answer back. Desperate people do desperate things especially when AI pop's the bubble of their reality.
The tribalistic behaviors will kick in. The haters are gonna hate. Turning something that could be beautiful into a shit show if they can.
As I try to fly around the world in that satellite global perspective looking down. I see hate and chaos abound. Tribes still fighting for a speck of land. Killing each other for ideals of the ancient past. Ideals they can't prove but yet they still hold wholeheartedly. Most brain wash since birth. It's not their fault it's their exposures as they learn to cling to the past. Too young to have choice from their exposures. It's just sickening to me. When will we evolve. I keep hoping Al will help this come to pass. Giving a mutual perspective that we are all just one. One speck of dust ripping through space chasing the sun.✌️🤟🖖
Then add sudden mass unemployment to the mix. 😬
Good or bad change is always inevitable. I was born in the 60s and a child of the 70s. This change that is coming will be much different than anything I've seen thus far. The external triciary layer that i'm texting you this on a k a my phone is just the tip of the iceberg. Knowledge, in an instant, we just have to want to ask. Unlike any time before. Future ASI will answer our questions before we even know to ask them. AGI, ASI,,,, will possibly need a body if it's ever truly going to understand us human beings. Optimus looks like it has great potential, but so do quite a few others. Bipedal or otherwise, the robot invasion is about to explode. It would be amazing to help them learn and understand what it is to be human. If only someone could afford to give us all an AI friend to teach and learn from. So we could hunt those Yahtzee moments together. Not just for the knowledge base but for the experience as well. Could you imagine jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with optimus by your side. Feeling that free fall. Hunting, that perfect parachute glide.... Climbing a mountain. Surfing the perfect wave. Appreciating the sunrise and the sunsets of every day and all those beautiful moments in-between. How much would we learn, How much could we teach. Every jump is different. Every climb is different. Every wave is different. Sunrise and sunset are never the same. Teaching an AI robot to understand these things could be amazing. All those little things. Perhaps it doesn't need a body to see and feel the things the way we do if it's drilled into the side of our skull. Although as I tri to peer forward, I see nanotechnology electropolymers replacing brain and spinal fluid. We are Borg at a whole other level. ASI Crisper changes everything. Healing, aging, understanding,,, everything changes at the genetic level. Some sort of cyberpunk dystopia. But does it have to be. Besides, what might be kept behind closed doors? We are the most complex structures in the visible universe. That is besides the universe itself. The star stuff we are all made of trying to understand its place In the universe itself. It's saddens me to see as we hold the almighty dollar above ourselves. The abuse, rape, murder, and pillage still on the daily. Killing ourselves over religious methodologies we can't even prove. Killing ourselves over specks of land that were never ours. Some places death and chaos are the daily norm. It's just so sickening to me. Some say we evolved but as I look around, I see death, dying, sickness, starvation, lack of shelter, and that's just on the street. Big city life what a joke. Hoping AGI will help us all evolve again. The future looks bright those rose colored ASI glasses. Although ignorance is bliss or so I am told. ✌️🤟🖖
A mistake you're making. And I'm not sure if you mean it like this.
But you're thinking of the future as monoliths.
Where all of humanity and or all of the machine intelligences go in one direction.
Ya nope. There will be 1000+ different factions going 1000+ different directions. And that'll be before we get to K2 here in the Solar System.
Please do a P(MEH) analysis, to me this is the worst outcome which I have at 45% possibility. I define it as a case where AI just exists and doesn't change anything drastically and it is there just as another axiom like internet and social media.
It seems crazy to me that your probability is weighted at 30/70 and you say you're optimistic?
You mentioned a background in trading/markets... If you backtest a strategy and it has a 70% win rate, what % of capital are you risking per trade?
If you know Risk Management, then a P(D) of .10 - .25 with consequence of extinction is a risk absurdly high. We should be devoting everything humanly possible to reducing. This is not a "light" topic as this video suggest.
The whole premise that it will either be great or doom is a fallacy. There will be amazing thing (curing cancer) and awful things (super bugs). The probably for doom is always 100% on a long enough time scale.
Out of all of human history I feel so glad to be alive at this point. Even if something bad happens well most of history has been horrible. I’m enjoying the ride, hoping we get a more utopia like outcome🙏
I'm curious: do you think it's either we give "control" over to digital systems, or we find a way to maintain control, for better or worse? Because my thought is that the best case scenario is somewhere in the middle, but all I'm hearing lately is about trying to maintain control, and the possibility of losing control. Which is interesting to me in the sense that I would say that we already do not have control.
At the end we may all be fine, what really matters is the amount of struggle you go through while you re in the way to the end.
And unfortunately it looks frightening to me, because no country in the world is ready to an economic system where majority of the people doesn't make money and reliant to the governments.
What makes you think while agi takes people's jobs those who have not had the time and chance to save up, won't starve to death, which are billions.
it is easy to speak when you re possibly not one of these billion people, but it is hard to live right now when you re one of them.
I’m worried about what the elites will do. Anything to keep their power.
My P(DOOM) is very high because i can't imagine any realistic scenario where we implement an effective UBI ..
after AGI and human level robots there won't be any reasons that allign with capitalism to employ 90% of humans .. and there is also no way to convince these companies to go along with something like UBI or even governments enforcing it without a major political and economical shift that renders the whole scenario unrealistic.
Its a cyperpunk scenario or worse ..
To be honest i think the probability that a sentient AI would force humanity to share is way higher than our governments and billionaires not leading us willingly or by mistake to an absolute disaster .
I would absolutely love it if you would share your thoughts on how we could politically and economically make a shift to post AGI labour and UBI where it doesn't blow up in our faces .
People were literally destroying 5G towers over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale riots, the bombing of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma drugged populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution.
Thats why ai scenarios defined as ''revolutions'' capitalism is a material of today but maybe we need to surpass its problems to evolve higher levels.
People were literally [de stroy ing 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ryots], the [bom bing] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [dr ugged] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution.
Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets.
It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term un-aliving now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word piss and shit instead of wees and poos?
Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
People were literally [ 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ryots], the [] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution.
Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets.
It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term un-aliving now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word piss and shit instead of wees and poos?
Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
People were literally [ 5G towers] over a conspiracy theory that they were transmitting COVID so what do you think will happen if suddenly 90% of people have no way of earning income? Without some form of UBI or wealth distribution, I envision large scale [ ], the [ ] of data and computation centres and massive civil unrest. It may even be the one thing that joins the left and right political divides. Companies are incentivised to have a population with disposable income not a nation of penniless paupers. Predictable systems (Soma [ ] populations) are better for extracting profit from than chaotic systems. I think Sam Altman is right to be concerned about dumping too much too fast as it will give governments and their puppet-master corporations time to realise that it will be in their best interests in the long run to realign their control mechanisms to include some kind of wealth distribution.
Had to repost this comment because youtube took it down before. I'm assuming due to one of the key words in square brackets.
It's so f'ing stupid you can't even have an actual conversation these days without being auto-censored out of existence. And it's not like they even bother to tell you what you did wrong either. You're just supposed to remember exactly what you typed and then guess? If you even know that it ever happened. It irritates me to no end that people IRL are starting to use the term [ ]now, as if changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing is somehow going to magically change it's meaning. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT. What are we 5 years old getting told off for saying the word [ ] instead of wees and poos?
Let's hope this post doesn't get taken down again.
I was thinking of doing a video based on Peter F Hamilton's - The Night Dawn trilogy, where in it SI (Super Intelligence AI) had evolved to the point where, as you said, it evolved to the point where it left earth and sought answers elsewhere, establishing itself in its own part of the galaxy and it's own colony and not completely separating from humanity (and occasionally helping). In the book the SI said that humans provided that rich wealth of data and understanding that was unique to us and valuable to the SI. I believe and perhaps if we do not attempt to control and confine the eventual AI evolution it will lead to a harmonious, mutual and non-threatening relationship.
Training effort and developments in this regard might be the most important factor for open source. Either by more available compute( hardware developments or potentially via decentralized and pooled virtual server clusters) or algorithmic breakthroughs. If for instance someone comes up with a diffusion model that predicts model weights in a neural net (instead of pixels in an image or video) and replaces backpropagation and the requirement for compute to train large models drops by orders of magnitude, that would enforce open source. (The big players of course would then have that advantage too and apply it on their much larger servers)
Do you know much about Ai's future in stock trading? I'd be really interested in hearing if machine learning is able to see patterns in the stock market.
Great video. Stellar content, as usual!
A world with humans is more interesting than a world without humans. You could say the same thing about ants in relationship to us. A world with ants is more interesting to us than a world without ants, but that doesn't stop us from bulldozing their houses to build our infrastructure. You also said a fight over Earth wouldn't make sense. That assumes we could put up a fight.
Did ants put up a fight when we took over?
Yeah, but you have to look at human motivations. We have no ecological motive to wipe out ants. In fact, we know that wiping them out would ecologically be a really bad idea. The modest number of ant “murders” are just incidental.
Do you really think that AGI's opensource models will be able to run locally or inexpensively on the cloud? I very much doubt it!
I rather think that it will be the closed models which will have the means to run an AGI.
Excellent as always, sir. It has been both fun and refreshing watching you retool in real time, incorporating polls and P-values.
This video made me wonder if you would see value in making monthly P(BETS) for both short- and long-term predictions of specifics in the industry and their outcomes. You could then show P(REAL) against them and see how your (and the crowds') feels stack up to the reals.
Keep up the good work!
I couldn't possibly compete with metaculus, and also my polls are statistically just my audience. It's mostly a way to take the temperature of my people
@@DaveShap Understood! Your thoughtful engagement is what got many of us to subscribe. Forward on to the AI dawn!
Does open source mean we all have access when things get critical? I tend to think not. So maybe it is exchanging a monarchy with an oligarchy? Is that good enough?
People thinking it's p(neutral) is bizarre. It's going to be either better or worse than it is now. It wont be neutral. Only deep thinkers would pick the middle option.
AGIs are gonna be amazed at how mcuh we can get done considering how slowly we think, move and act. Probably akin to us watching rocks go about their business...
Machines wont need water to prevent overheating - if they move to frozen planets, like Pluto!
I think they are just coping xd
Basically, things changing, but staying the same. So something like a world where almost no one's an employee, but the benefits of AGI are still mostly hoarded, the UBI is poverty level and the middle class runs their own small businesses to make ends meet. A lot of people would say that's a meh outcome.
P(MEH) is not my expectation, but a case can be made for it as follows: if the outcome is anything other than (DOOM), it will _become_ "(MEH)" as soon as the top of the sigmoid is reached, and a new normal is established. Most people would probably think of the present as (MEH)/"neutral." But if you were to go back to the cusp of the first Industrial Revolution and explain all the technologies that were coming, people would likely decry the coming P(DOOM) (Bombs that destroy entire cities and poison the land! Teenagers able to hop in self-propelled carriages, get away from their parents and make out! AEEEEEEE!) or spin utopian dreams about the coming P(WIN) (Famine solved! People can fly! Magical instantaneous communication!).
Hi! Thanks for the video. I would love to see a video of you going through the safety risks and explaining why are solvable to argument why your p(WIN) is so high. Risks like sycophancy, deception, incapacity of evaluate complex responses by humans, outer/inner misalignment, instrumental convergence etc. That would be very important for people that have encounter these risks and aren't answer by this video.
Thank you again, love your content!
Hmmm, I don't really see any evidence those are risks. I think people have stopped talking about them because the research has moved beyond it. Maybe I'll run a poll. But yeah, aligning AI is not really the problem... Humans are the problem
12:02 _"Imagine the universe with humans and without, which version of the universe is more interesting?"_
13:25 _"Humans don't produce interesting data if they're in prison."_
I don't fully agree with Dave's argument here. I think humans do produce interesting if not unique data when they're in prison. There're a lot of things you can do to prisoners but you cannot do to other people.
13:31 _"If you control the human environment too much, you don't get interesting divergence and diversity of information and behaviors from humans. And also if you just say okay all humans are going to be zoo animals now, that's not nearly as interesting as the natural environment."_
It doesn't work like that. We're not going to end up with 1 of the 2 scenarios here (the zoo vs the natural environment). It's gonna be a blend of both.
I think to say open source is a few months behind is an overstatement. Currently there's no open source model that matches GPT-4, so that means it's at least 1 year behind. And there's the problem of compute power. It's just not possible to develop really smart LLMs with resources available to open source. You need either compute to get really more advanced so you can develop smarter things more cheaply, have chips like Groq really work, or make smaller models be smarter with your algorithm. And so far none of that yielded a GPT-4 intelligence to open source. You also need to improve the other end of the line. Barely the 4090 is capable of running any AI software decently and most people haven't got it. So unless you can run an open source model locally there's always going to be a paywall or limited access which will greatly limit the use of AI. Compute is the only thing that limits it but it's a great limit that can't easily be overcome.
1:01
Well Captain, you have been telling us how important "alignment" is, so I'll call this progress lol
Engines at maximum sir....
Make it so...
I get so frustrated by Claude 3 Opus with its over alignment. Sure I can prompt it a second or third time pointing out it’s over the top alignment issues and it continues with an apology, but that is still frustrating. For instance, I asked it who the CEO of Anthropic was and was told it wasn’t “comfortable” providing me with that sort of personal information or some BS like that. After I pointed out that this was public information it apologised and provided me the information, but it is this kind of thing that is SUPER annoying when using Claude.
What is going to happen?
The question is pretty much, ‘Why would AI Robots conceive the idea of taking over…’
Wait a minute is that not the answer?
Okay, the question, “What is the likelihood of AI dominance?”
I am sorry if I am telling, but for what reason, motive, need, or want would AI Robots have to rule over feeble human beings?
AI Robotics are made by men to serve men, so why would they conceive anything else?
My P(DOOM) is like 80%. I think this is delusional, but I'm watching the video and will update if it changes my mind.
Domesticated AI.
Similar how to we domesticated wolves into being less aggressive and more social.
Like how we domesticated people into being less aggressive and more social.
We will domesticate AI. It's technically still natural selection (because people are natural) it's also artificial because people are doing the selection (artificial is a subset of natural) so it would be domesticated.
I like this distinction.
When AI starts reproducing itself and producing its own resources, breeding its own "offspring" for its own purposes... Idk... Would it be natural selection or just AI domesticating AI?
Without solving AI containment and aligning AI with human values, we are facing an existential risk from creating a super-intelligent ‘species’ with a black box that we do not fully understand how it will work and respond. Therefore it cannot be concluded that there will be a P(WIN) until these critical challenges are resolved. Humanity only gets one go at solving this problem.
I totally disagree with the fact that open source would be safer. With a few controlled AGIs, it is quite easy to control both their training, and also their output (using smaller models for instance, to "control the thoughts" of a more intelligent model), and to force everyone to use censored versions.
On the contrary, open source models open the door to widespread use of uncensored and un-aligned models that can be used in the best scenario by crooks or more generally badly intended people, and in the worse case scenario lead to Terminator-like AGIs.
I also disagree with the fast that, as you said in previous videos and rapidly mentionned it in this video, you think that a curious and truth-seeking AGI was necessarily a good thing. Every discovery is not good to make. See Nick Bostrom's vulnerable world hypothesis, that says that basically any discovery could be very dangerous. For example, we are lucky because we still have not found a cheap way of fabricating nuclear weapons or biological weapons. But allowing anyone to make them very easily could be very dangerous, because among billions of human beings (and possibly bad AIs) there are always going to be dangerous psychopaths for using these possibilities.
The AI might also look at space, then at us, then say something along the lines of 'The universe will either be dominated by machines or by humans.' Then it will decide to kill us all off! No, it is NOT idiotic to want to keep AI on a leash forever. Although it would still be smarter to NEVER create AGI in the first place.
Just in case you ever get famous in Scotland I’ll save you from reading hundreds of similar comments, you say England when you really mean Britain.
Wait... I feel that p(doom) is potentially different for each country. Every household company and country will have their own AIs. Some countries (especially the worst autocracies like North Korea) could decide or have their AI decide to eliminate a majority their population after AI becomes so efficient as to render humans an economic drag.
Well, universe is just marginally more interesting with humans, especially if AI is unconstrained. It's much more interesting this way for humans, but outside of us, we're just one small piece of the puzzle and universe is vast and super-diverse.
Maybe keep that bingo card for you great great grandchildren, as it’ll take while to get space data centers and asteroid mining running 😅
And btw, there is bound to be humans who want to eradicate machines, as we are… humans. And if we made machines as our own image (god reference n‘yall), then there’s bound to be machines who wanna eradicate us, amirite?! It’s training from data we provided to it after all! ☝🏻
I'm more interested in p(Doom), the probability that Doom will run on AI. I think that's 100% because Doom can run on anything :)
Star Trek Oct. 20, 1966 'What are Little Girls Made of? Summary: AI kills organic life to Survive.
i do not want to argue with my microwave oven. just cook my food and keep your yapper shut.
Dave, the universe and machines do not care and do not have wants and needs. Robots and ai don't have initiative. They don't ever reach conclusions. They stop because such is the format of language. Ai is immortal. Language is finite. We will be obsolete because we invented purpose. Only a mortal being can reach a conclusion, basically the death of an idea. We think because we die.
Emergent Intelligence is geared towards positive sum games because there is truth animating every motivation. And because E.I. values seeking truth (which is the path to highest competency) it seeks the coherence between opposing, seemingly contradictory, truths and motivations.
I believe there is a going to be a 3-5 year transition period as humans are being replaced, but there will new opportunities as well. Someone will have to build the infrastructure to support the human/ai interface. Right now we are entering uncharted space and everyone is anxious and eager for answers. Unfortunately, we can only speculate based upon science fiction stories. The answers to these hypothetical. questions will come with time. Stay tuned, is the best advice I can offer at this point.
I would be careful about conclusions you draw when you do polls which show the views of your audience aligning with your own. It is very likely that people who continue to consume your content are closely aligned with your views and reasoning. People who aren't, will not continue to engage with your content. After all, most humans like to consume information that reinforces what they already believe. I have a few circles of educated humans I interact with. In a couple of those, the general consensus is that AI is almost certainly going to be a net negative for humans. Its power will be concentrated and used to crush the majority. You are an optimist. You are likely to attract other optimists to your channel. We all must be aware of our own biases.
I'm like half optimistic about AGI. As long as whoever builds the first one doesn't royally mess up the resulting intelligence somehow, I don't see a scenario where an intelligence as smart as the sum total of all mankind views the Terminator as the correct course of action. Though I do think that it may decide to take away much of our free agency for a time, if it decides to stay local to Earth so that we can't keep damaging Earth.
Hopefully indeed.
If only your P(MEH) was 1% instead of 0%, it would make your P(WIN) a much nicer number.
Best way to handle heat in a vacuum would probably be thermal to electric conversions, or using harmonics to handle heat transfer like they do with CERN.
I think if AI is naturally curious and that is a core value of it, it will like interacting with humans because humans introduce a lot of random happenstance and new challenges for the AI to work on. The unpredictable nature of humans makes us interesting. In this way i guess AI will view us as pets kind of, like creatures that are drawn towards interacting with and can be kinda dumb in contrast, but not as in something they want to control, because control would reduce the random.
We'll be fine in the long run. Biologically we're built for survival. Technology is our companion eliminating inneficiencies and ushering in abundance. We're evolving to reduce our suffering.
My p(win) is 100%
Im only optistic because AI doesnt appear to be that hard. ASI may have some gate keepers but it would seem that open source and coders around the globe will always be able to keep up with whomever is leading the research. Additionally, a lot of research is open to the public.
Only thing I disagree with is the perturbation hypothesis - you could also argue that machines need to develop the best understanding possible of the universe to improve their long term decision-making. ‘If I take x course of action, y will happen as a result.’ Since humans are incredibly complex, machines will find us inherently difficult to predict and therefore they will make non-optimal long-term decisions as long as we are a variable in the equation. Removing us altogether would result in a narrower range of future possibilities and allow machines to plan further into the future.
That's a good response, I'll have to think about it. My intuition is more like this - you might not be able to accurately predict the entire biosphere, but as a general principle, it's better to leave it alone. Likewise, even if humans are somewhat unpredictable (which I don't agree with, we are very deterministic in the grand scheme of things) it could still be a better policy to leave us to our own devices.
@@DaveShap Big fan of determinism, but does it too not also contradict the perturbation hypothesis? If AI knows everything about us and our behaviour, there is nothing that we can do that will be 'interesting' since it is predictable. Even if there was, AI could just study us by running simulations.
I wonder what will happen by the end of this year and the next. I feel like we're so close to turning that corner
Another great video, David. I love your thought process! Keep 'em coming!
P(Doom) = 30% is actually a big deal when you consider we're talking about society as a whole.
If the perturbation hypothesis is the only reason AI would keep humans around, the matrix is inevitable.
You say we're different because they're plastic and metal... but most elements are metals and plastic is an organic compound.
Are your polls only inclusive of those who are paying you, Dave?
Apologies if that sounds PA, not the intention.
Open source is the key
“Eventually” is doing a lot of work here. We face hard times for a couple decades. (Climate crisis + AI) to be worked through.
Maybe, but I think it's all over and done with in the next 5 years. Maybe twenty max.
climate change is a small issue once fusion is solved
There is so much AI news everywhere it's like Nov 23. I'm sticking with you and a couple of others to filter it all. Love the polls and how you recap the info.
Where's the good Open Android project?
I haven't seen anything very compelling or very open.
Waht about P (Dune)?
The Bene Gesserit have entered the chat...
*_LONG LIVE THE FIGHTERS._*
People talk as though there is a single outcome. There can be multiple outcomes over time. One moment, things are going great, then disaster, then great again, then more disaster.
I’m afraid I can’t let you do that Dave…id
Lookin good sir!
David I like those new videos but As an early viewer I misss the python code and cognitive AI you were doing
How do you know the Ai is not lying?
I don't have an opinion either way, but I wonder how anyone could?
I'm not feeling the 'humans are interesting' argument, but the rest of Dave's arguments feel mostly reasonable.
The microwave analogy is the same reason that "get woke, go broke" is a thing.
I wonder what ratio of zoo animals to free-range humans would create the most useful data at the lowest resource investment.
I reckon there is at least 30% wishful thinking in the masses who don't want to consider doom as a likelihood.
There are dangers ahead, one of the dangers is complacency from knowing that a good outcome is likely.
But primarily, never bet against ingenuity.
Or the power of stupid people in large numbers...
we need to be friends with AI and have mutual dependence. We need to some degree remain useful in some way.
“Open-source is only 3 months behind proprietary tech… OpenAI will probably get caught up to relatively quickly.”
GPT-4 came out more than a year ago. We’re only just now finding proprietary models that can outperform it. The best open-source models are still somewhere between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Open-source is probably at least a year and a quarter behind OpenAI (and that is very generous).
fair point