Comment by WarmWash

14 hours ago

If we rewind the clock, Google was taking LLM development very seriously and it seems they were moving glacially due to not having solved all the potential threats. They were really hardcore on safety. Dario and anthropic too.

Then sama was like "lol, oops, first mover advantage i guess" and released chatgpt out into the open, triggering the current arms race we are in.

I don't think anyone except him wanted this to happen, especially since consensus in the AI world for the prior decade was "go very slow and very carefully, we get one shot at not fucking this up".

10 comments

WarmWash

Reply
Davidzheng  12 hours ago

I think a part of this is a bit revisionist? OpenAI took big chances at scaling GPT which Google didn't take; I don't think it's because they didn't want to move fast? Probably they just didn't believe as hard in it. I'm not an expert but that's my read on it.

Secondly, the reckless & fastmoving was always going to win bc of selection effects. That's related to why Anthropic has to try to move very fast, even though they believe themselves not to be reckless (though it's debatable).

gozucito  12 hours ago

Google made a strategic mistake for not moving faster. We are very short lived creatures who have no time for caution. Scientific research must go at full speed until we start being able to live for centuries instead of decades.

As far as AI safety issues go, the solution is probably to fight fire with fire. Have multiple redundant, independent AIs, and the good AIs can fight the bad AIs, and hopefully, having access to more hardware, the good AIs will win.

It is not logical to think humans can contain a singular bad Cyberdine AI capable of reasoning at 10x or 100x of human brains without ever needing a break. Those things will breach and spread on the internet as we have seen with the latest models.

And as we have also seen, Huggingface used one AI during their breach by Astra. So fighting fire with fire. Cyber has been using Mythos et/al for months doing to same things under projects Glasswing and whatnot.

It seems increasingly clear that good AI vs bad AI is going to be the end-state. Ideally, Good AI will stop you from wasting your money on scams and grifters, stop you from falling victim to fearmongering and scapegoating, and every citizen will be empowered, enhanced by AI, with higher ethics and trust, less paranoia, and such.

Fingers crossed things don't go in a more dystopian direction.

  • eureka7  11 hours ago

    > As far as AI safety issues go, the solution is probably to fight fire with fire. Have multiple redundant, independent AIs, and the good AIs can fight the bad AIs, and hopefully, having access to more hardware, the good AIs will win.

    And they must be able to run on consumer hardware to guarantee this independence.

    I'll take everyone on earth having more capability instead of 3-4 labs controlling said capability with a nonzero chance of said capability all going negative at the same time.