Certainly there is a spectrum of behavior for which we would deem allowable or not allowable. However, that in itself is an ambiguous set of rules or heuristics for which there is no clear boundary and presents the risk of leaks of control due to not well defined limits.

However, for whatever behavior we set within the unallowable, that must be protected such that it can not be self modified by the AGI. By what mechanism do we think that will be achievable?

>By the time people have made the shift, AI will take that over as well.

Yes, this is the new rat race. Someone posted elsewhere they had spent the last 3 months working on new AI projects which all became obsolete before they could finish.

I think it is rather the majority of individuals just want to pursue other work or interests that they hope AI will provide in some manner directly or indirectly.

As to whether this will work out as some hope is certainly worthy of thought exploration, but I think the motives for most are not exactly as you have stated them.

I agree, although when I began writing on these topics recently I have been somewhat hopeful as more people are aware of concerns than I had anticipated.

There is an enormous hype storm right now, but I see a bit of reality and more careful reflection joining conversations. Hopefully with enough discussion and dialog we can bring as much reason as possible into focus.

FYI, in the event you are interested. This is a bit lengthy, but it is a summary of some recent thoughts about the evolution of AI as we continue to push forward in this endeavor. I'm always looking for more feedback and conversation.

https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

I think I have arrived at the point of being optimistically afraid.

The problems look too complex to be solved, but we apparently aren't going to stop so how much should I worry into futility.

Much of what you write is in line with what many hope AI will bring to the world. It is the instinctive concept that appears within our minds when we imagine what could be.

However, 'what could be' and 'what will be' are often stark contradictions. Given enough contemplation the negative possibilities begin to become a bit more concerning. Have you looked deeper into the potential unwanted side effects and have any thoughts thereof?

On the topic of bias, this is going to be very problematic issue for AI. It technically is not solvable in the way that some people think it should be. The machine will never be without bias, we only have a set of "bad" choice of bias to choose from.

I've written in more depth about the Bias Paradox here FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-the-bias-paradox

As for the flaws in LLMs. There was a good publication here covers some of that in detail - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.03494.pdf

> Now it's only a matter of time before the kinks get ironed out.

Yes, that is the point of view of some. However, it is not the point of view of all. Meaning that if this is a core architecture problem of LLMs, it will not be solvable without a new architecture. So, yes it can be solved, but it won't be an LLM that solves it.

But yes, I'm more concerned about the implications of what comes next when we do solve it.

The hallucination problem seems to be a significant obstacle that is inherit in the architecture of LLMs. Their application is going to be significantly more limited than the current hype as long as that remains unresolved.

Ironically, when it is resolved, we get a whole lot of new problems, but more in the philosophical space.