Roman Yampolsky
speaker
257 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jun 2024
last heard Jun 2024
Roman Yampolsky’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
We've been doing it for years. Software controls all the systems, nuclear power plants, airline industry, it's all software-based. Every time there is electrical outage, I can't fly anywhere for days.
No, but if it shows it is safer, in fact, when it's in control, we get better results, people will demand that it was put in place.
And if not, it can hack the system. It can use social engineering to get access to it. That's why I said it might take some time for it to accumulate those resources.
I really hope you're right, but it's not what I'm seeing. People are very quick to jump on a latest trend. Early adopters will be there before it's even deployed buying prototypes.
So we've been deploying systems which had hidden capabilities.
GPT-4. I don't know what else it's capable of, but there are still things we haven't discovered it can do. They may be trivial proportionate to its capability. I don't know. It writes Chinese poetry, hypothetical. I know it does. But we haven't tested for all possible capabilities, and we are not explicitly designing them. We can only rule out bugs we find.
We cannot rule out bugs and capabilities because we haven't found them.
Again, we can only ask and test for things we know about. If there are unknown unknowns, we cannot do it. I'm thinking of human statistics events, right? If you talk to a person like that, you may not even realize they can multiply 20-digit numbers in their head. You have to know to ask.
So two things. One, we're switching from tools to agents. Tools don't have negative or positive impact. People using tools do. So guns don't kill. People with guns do. Agents can make their own decisions. They can be positive or negative. A pit bull can decide to harm you as an agent. The fears are the same. The only difference is now we have this technology.
Then they were afraid of humanoid robots 100 years ago. They had none. Today, every major company in the world is investing billions to create them. Not every, but you understand what I'm saying? It's very different.
They are saying they are building super intelligence and have a super alignment team. You don't think they are trying to create a system smart enough to be an independent agent under that definition?
Those systems are well beyond narrow AI. If you had to list all the capabilities of GPT-4, you would spend a lot of time writing that list.
Not yet. But do you think any of those companies are holding back because they think it may be not safe or are they developing the most capable system they can given the resources and hoping they can control and monetize?
I mean, I can't speak for other people. For all of them, I think some of them are very ambitious. They fundraise in trillions. They talk about controlling the light corner of the universe. I would guess that they might.
I really hope you're right. I think the scaling hypothesis is correct. We haven't seen diminishing returns. It used to be we asked how long before AGI. Now we should ask how much until AGI. It's a trillion dollars today. It's a billion dollars next year. It's a million dollars in a few years.
Compute gets cheaper every day, exponentially.
If the only disagreement is that it will take decades, not years, for everything I'm saying to materialize, then I can go with that.
There is a lot to unpack here. There is a partnership on AI, a conglomerate of many large corporations. They have a database of AI accidents they collect. I contributed a lot to that database.
If we so far made almost no progress in actually solving this problem, not patching it, not, again, lipstick on the pick kind of solutions, why would we think we'll do better than we're closer to the problem?
Again, I want to be perfectly clear. I love AI. I love technology. I'm a computer scientist. I have a PhD in engineering. I work at an engineering school. There is a huge difference between we need to develop narrow AI systems, super intelligent in solving specific human problems like protein folding, and let's create super intelligent machine guarded and we'll decide what to do with us.
Showing 81–100 of 257 · page 5 of 13
← Previous
Next →