

I expect more efficient LLMs to come out of China, who has turned to the AI-as-software model (contrast the AI-as-service model in the US).


I expect more efficient LLMs to come out of China, who has turned to the AI-as-software model (contrast the AI-as-service model in the US).


It might also be that Altman and Musk are deliberately lying, intentionally feigning agreement to encourage other models to slow down while they quietly ramp up development.
It seems all the US models want their AI to be the one that becomes hostile, escapes confinement and attempts to dominate the world.
(In reality, they want their own AI to be the one that is able to obediently dominate the world, which is just as bad a scenario for the rest of us.)



I’m not sure Chinese labs are even going in the same direction as the AI projects in the US. They’re working to see what they can do with a (more) reasonable amount of buildout, rather than building data centers from horizon to horizon.
Also, the Chinese are motivated by seeing what AI can do for a larger society. American AI systems are being refined automation and instruments of control, specifically military and national security interests.
Essentially, the US industry is trying to get AI to train a gun on the entire US population.


My paypal account was forcibly closed for no given reason. I still don’t know why.


To be fair, I’m not sure human beings are self aware / conscious beyond the pedestrian meaning of these terms in psychology.
I don’t think Randall Munroe would argue others are dumber than he is, only that he’s seeing a scenario that is not (as frequently) reflected in fiction and thought experiments as the classic AI gains sentience, escapes containment and takes over scenario.
I’d point to Linus’ Law, Given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow. (Wikipedia notes the law’s validity is confirmed empirically, but refuted in analysis.) This applies to more than software. Right now, election enthusiasts in the US are combing election law and procedure for ways the November election can be thrown, and ways to counter that scenario quickly.
I was thinking about the misprogramming scenario of AI escape. This implies hyperintelligent AI is dangerous even when everyone using it is benign and has non-adversarial intentions. Essentially an AI will need to be coded with an ethics system such as that of a general (or high-ranking soldier in the US) who deliberates on operational action and its consequences, whether the operation is legal, or would cause undue harm in its execution.
Right now, AI in its current development is… whimsical, at best. That is to say, it ignores rules the way it hallucinates facts. And AI can be manipulated to ignore rules through adversarial input, so AI is not ready to operate dangerous machinery.