I'm not qualified enough to figure how drastic measures can be enough.

From countries realising they face a huge common crisis that they only survive it if they forget the squabbles and work together.

To using the AI itself to analyse and prevent it's own threats.

To classifying all trained general-purpose models of scale of ChatGPT and above and preventing the possibility of making the new ones (as I see entire-internet-packed models the biggest threat now, if they can be used without the safeguards)

And up to to forcebly reverting all publically avaiable computing and communication technology to the level of 20 of 30 years ago, until we figure how we can use it safely.

I hate it, but see no other alternatives safe enough.

I understand the sentiment, but I think it's irresponsible. Possible bad consequences of AI misuse is worse by far than enything other research before. It's not a reason to stop them, but a reason to treat them with extreme care.

I'd say abosultely yes for about any field, except for AI.
Yes, it's unfair, but I would prefer to depend on goodwill of people, than on goodwill of machines.

Thanks.

I think people vastly underestimate the possibilities of use of ChatGPT-like model. If it has learned from the entire(-ish) interned scrapped, it's not just language model, it's the model of entire human kowledge avaialbe on the internet, neatly documented and cross-referenced for very easy use by algorithms. Currently it's used by quite simple algorithms, but what if it will be algorithms that try to use that data to write itself, btw? Or something else we don't forese yet.

And I don't even know how it's possible to contain the danger now, as algorithm for "pickling" internet like that is already widely known, so it could be easily done by anyone with budget and internet access. So, one of necessary measures could be switching off the internet...

I'm a programmer myself. Actually, I'm writing an AI for a bot in game right now, without the ML, of cause. And it's quite good at killing human players, btw, even though algorithm is quite simple.

So tell me, please, why AI can't become really dangerous really soon?
By itself, network like ChatGPT is reatively harmless. It's not that smart, and can't do anything in real world directly. Just tells something to human.

But, corpos and countries funnel ton of money into the field. Models are learning different things, algorithms are improving, so they will know much more stuff soon, including how to move and operate things in real world. Then, what stops somebody from connecting some models together, and stick it into a robot arm, which will make and install more robot arms and war drones, which will seek and kill humans? Either specific kind of humans, or humans in general, depending on that "somebody"'s purpose?

I won't argue the existence of those camps. But China definitely got ML training and development running on massive scale, very likely using technologies, uncontrollably leaked from US. So, now we need the goodwill not of just US to contain the danger, but of China too and who know who else.

I hate it too. But I don't see any other options that does not carry the existential threat.

Yes, but it being spread uncontrollably means there is much more governments and corporations that can mass censor the population with AI or create an army of kill bots.

And yet, we don't have nuclear wars so far.

Yeah, me knowing me is one of the reason I think AI is not safe in hands of general public:)

Yes, but it would require a lot of time and effort. AI has already read it all and can give it an equivalent of millenias worth of human time to analyse.

As far as I see, whoever is doing it is not doing it very good. Be it AI or human.

Key word here is "right now".

Ok, how would you suggest solving that issue then?

Imagine the following scenario. Alice has an advance AI model at home. And asks it, "find me a best way to to a certain bad thing and get away from it". Such, harming or even murdering someone. If it's a model like ChatGPT, it probably will be trained to avoid answering such questions.

But if network models are not regulated, she can find an immoral warez model without morals, or retrain the morale out of it, or pretend that she is a police officer that needs that data to solve the case. Then model gives her the usable method.

Now imagine if she asks for a method to do something way more drastic.

Yes, it's kinda self-limit itself by the costs of training now. But I think it's inevitable that there will be more efficient training algorithms soon, possibly by orders of magnitude. Probably found with the help of ML, as AI now can be trained for programming and research too.

Nothing we knew yet has the danger potential of the self-learning AI.
Even though it's still a potential still.
And it's true that we should restrict only certain applications of it, but it could be a very wide list of application, with very serious measures necessary.

Yes, exactly. Which is why it's important to not give access to dangerous things into hands of those who could misuse it with catastrophic consequences.

I don't know. Would require serious measures and cooperation between countries, and I don't think the world is ready for that yet.

But I'd say, classifying the research and trained models, limiting the access and functionality of equipment that can be used for AI training.

Especially the more general-purpose models, like programming ones.

Yes, restricting it just in one country is pointless, which is why major countries should work on this together, like on limiting nuke spread.

Biotech, Nanomaterials, Chip research, etc could require regulation too, though I don't see them as unpredictable as ML now.

And I don't suggest banning AI research - just limiting and regulaing it's development and the spread of algorithms and equipment, so it's less likely to get in hands of underground illegal communities.

Yes, it can, because it can gather it's own data.