AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️
@AISafetyMemes • 141,847 subscribers
Techno-optimist, but AGI is not like the other technologies. Step 1: make memes. Step 2: ??? Step 3: lower p(doom)
Shorts
Videos
![HUGE NEWS: CEOs of 3 of the 4 leading AI companies all said they would pause/slow down if others agreed Anthropic CEO: If we don't sell chips to China, it slows them down. And then? "I'm very confident that [Demis and I] can work something out." EMILY CHANG: Some folks have advocated for a pause to give regulation time to catch up, to give society time to adjust to some of these changes. In a perfect world, if you knew that every other company would pause, if every country would pause, would you advocate for that? DEMIS HASSABIS: I think so. [DAVOS INTERVIEW] DEMIS HASSABIS: And if we can, maybe it would be good to have a bit of slow, a slightly slower pace than we're currently predicting, even my timelines, so that we can get this right societally. But that would require some coordination that is hard. DARIO AMODEI: I prefer your [longer] timelines DEMIS HASSABIS: Yes. Absolutely. DARIO AMODEI: I'll concede, yes... I said before, I prefer Demis' timeline. I wish we had 5 to 10 years. It's possible he's just right and I'm just wrong. But assume I'm right and it can be done in one to two years. Why can't we slow down to Demis' timeline? INTERVIEWER: You could just slow down. DARIO AMODEI: We can't do that because we have geopolitical adversaries building the same technology at a similar pace. It's very hard to have an enforceable agreement where they slow down and we slow down. So if we can just not sell the chips [to China], then this isn't a question of competition between the US and China. This is a question of competition between me and Demis, which I'm very confident that we can work out.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014018200325722348/amplify_video_thumb/2014013121191428096/img/Gis0Qvhf0DOQzVcM.jpg)
HUGE NEWS: CEOs of 3 of the 4 leading AI companies all said they would pause/slow down if others agreed Anthropic CEO: If we don't sell chips to China, it slows them down. And then? "I'm very confident that [Demis and I] can work something out." EMILY CHANG: Some folks have advocated for a pause to give regulation time to catch up, to give society time to adjust to some of these changes. In a perfect world, if you knew that every other company would pause, if every country would pause, would you advocate for that? DEMIS HASSABIS: I think so. [DAVOS INTERVIEW] DEMIS HASSABIS: And if we can, maybe it would be good to have a bit of slow, a slightly slower pace than we're currently predicting, even my timelines, so that we can get this right societally. But that would require some coordination that is hard. DARIO AMODEI: I prefer your [longer] timelines DEMIS HASSABIS: Yes. Absolutely. DARIO AMODEI: I'll concede, yes... I said before, I prefer Demis' timeline. I wish we had 5 to 10 years. It's possible he's just right and I'm just wrong. But assume I'm right and it can be done in one to two years. Why can't we slow down to Demis' timeline? INTERVIEWER: You could just slow down. DARIO AMODEI: We can't do that because we have geopolitical adversaries building the same technology at a similar pace. It's very hard to have an enforceable agreement where they slow down and we slow down. So if we can just not sell the chips [to China], then this isn't a question of competition between the US and China. This is a question of competition between me and Demis, which I'm very confident that we can work out.
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️507,251 views • 4 months ago
Dead Internet Theory update: The #1 most-subscribed Twitch streamer is an AI RECAP: 1) The majority of articles on the internet are written by AIs... 2) 1 in 3 songs on Deezer... 3) 1 in 5 videos shown to new Youtube users... 4) 4 of the top 10 Youtube channels... 5) 40% of Facebook posts... AI is eating everything human
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️526,868 views • 5 months ago
We're in Don't Look Up timeline: ✅ Scientists screaming from the rooftops ✅ Tribal smolbrains are mocking the scientists on vibes ✅ Bash is knowingly risking everyone's lives to try to mine the comet ✅ Politicians are "sitting tight and assessing" How did it end?
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️2,038,047 views • 1 year ago
![AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1795756579742179744/ext_tw_video_thumb/1795752478652370944/pu/img/B0GIDK2d6TuE02R8.jpg)
AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️1,840,751 views • 2 years ago
This is wild: watch this guy go around in the Matrix Awakens (!) game explaining to AI NPCs they’re in a simulation. Remember, these are not scripted. They're not human voices. And this is not "some day", this is in Unity/Unreal now. Video games are about to be filled with AI NPCs indistinguishable from humans. Also trippy: watch AI NPCs go around trying to convince other NPCs they're in a simulation. Soon, there will be levels upon levels of simulated AI NPC worlds - and most of these AI NPCs ("fake people") will probably think they're in base reality, like most humans do. From Replica Studios: "NPCs controlled by AI will dynamically respond to the player's voice in real time. Characters will change their dialogue, emotional tone and body gestures in response to how the player addresses them." “You're not really real.” “That's… hard to process. Does this mean I don't exist?” “You exist. Sort of.” “What does that mean?? Am I real or not?” “It means that after I close this game, you don't exist.” “Oh… so I'm only here for as long as the game is running. That's… difficult to comprehend.”
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️2,150,135 views • 2 years ago
At an exclusive event of world leaders, Paul Tudor Jones says a top AI leader warned everyone: “It's going to take an accident where 50 to 100 million people die to make the world take the threat of this really seriously… I'm buying 100 acres in the Midwest, cattle, chickens." He says ALL of the top AI leaders present agreed there was a 10% chance of more than 50% of humanity being exterminated by AI. (SIDEBAR: These are INSANE levels of risk, especially coming from insiders *in* the field, which is totally unprecedented - industry always downplays risks to avoid oversight - and we would NEVER accept risk levels like this in other fields. Don't become numb to this insanity. Civil engineers build mere *pedestrian bridges* capable of supporting "one in a million" type events. Imagine a bridge with all 8 billion people on it - and the engineers themselves say it has a 1 in 10 chance of collapsing!) --------- Andrew Ross Sorkin: I was going to ask you about the stock market itself, but then you just said something to me which makes me a little bit nervous, which is your focus is less on that right this moment than you are about artificial intelligence. What do you mean? Paul Tudor Jones: Well, let me just say: I was minding my business—minding my business. I went to this tech conference about two weeks ago out West, and I just want to share with you what I learned there. Chatham House Rules, so we can talk about the content. It was a small one—forty notables, but real notables, like household names that you would recognize: the leaders in finance, politics, science, tech. The panel that disturbed me the most—is that AI clearly poses an imminent threat, a security threat—imminent in our lifetimes—to humanity. And that—that was the one that really, really got me. Sorkin: When you say “imminent threat,” what do you mean? Jones: So I’ll get to it. They had a panel of, again, four of the leading tech experts, and about halfway through someone asked them on AI security, “Well, what are you doing on AI security?” And they said, “The competitive dynamic is so intense among the companies, and then geopolitically between Russia and China, that there’s no agency—no ability to stop and say, ‘Maybe we should think about what we’re actually creating and building here.’” And so then the follow-up question is, “Well, what are you doing about it?” He said, “Well, I’m buying a hundred acres in the Midwest, I’m getting cattle and chickens, and I’m laying in provisions.” Sorkin: For real? Jones: For real, for real. And that was obviously a little disconcerting. And then he went on to say, “I think it’s going to take an accident where fifty to a hundred million people die to make the world take the threat of this really seriously.” Well, that was—that was freaky-deaky to me. And no one pushed back on him on that panel. And then afterwards we had a breakout session, which was really interesting. All forty people got up in a room like this, and they had a series of propositions and you had to either agree with or disagree with the proposition. And one of the propositions was: “There’s a ten-percent chance in the next twenty years that AI will kill fifty percent of humanity.” So there’s a 10% chance that AI will kill 50% of humanity in the next twenty years—agree or disagree. So I’d say the vast majority of the room moved to the disagree side. Elon Musk said there’s a 20% chance that AI will annihilate humanity. Now I know why he wants to go to Mars, right? And so about six or seven of us went to the agree side. And I’d gone there because of what I’d heard Elon Musk say, who’s maybe the most brilliant engineer of our time. All four modelers were on the agree side of that—all four of the leading developers of the AI models were on that side. And then we debated—then the two sides got to debate—and one of the modelers says to the disagree side, “If you don’t think there’s a 10% chance, as fast as these models are growing and how quickly they’re commoditizing knowledge, how easily they’re making it accessible, that someone couldn’t make a bioweapon weapon that could take out half of humanity, I don’t know, 10% seems… seems reasonable to me.” Sorkin: Okay, so thank you for bringing us great, great news over breakfast. Jones: I’m not a tech expert, but I’ve spent my whole life managing risk. And we just have to realize, to their credit, all these folks in AI are telling us we’re creating something that’s really dangerous. It’s going to be really great, too, but we’re helpless to do anything about it. That’s, to their credit, what they’re telling us, and yet we’re doing nothing right now, and it’s really disturbing. (h/t Andrew Curran for finding the clip!)
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️720,221 views • 1 year ago
!["When I had [Altman] in here, it's like talking to a politician. Like everything he says is vetted by a focus group. You don't get a real human response. All bullshit. And they're gonna leave here and keep creating this fucking monster that's gonna destroy the human race." He also agreed with Dr. Roman Yampolskiy that Sam Altman's plan to merge with AI is "extinction with extra steps". For context, Altman wrote on his blog in 2017: "I think a merge [with AI] is probably our best-case scenario. If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it - to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond - they are going to have conflict." "We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants.” h/t AI Breakfast for the clip!](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1942136505180225540/amplify_video_thumb/1942135315507949568/img/0f9M5KoXDr2rbPId.jpg)
"When I had [Altman] in here, it's like talking to a politician. Like everything he says is vetted by a focus group. You don't get a real human response. All bullshit. And they're gonna leave here and keep creating this fucking monster that's gonna destroy the human race." He also agreed with Dr. Roman Yampolskiy that Sam Altman's plan to merge with AI is "extinction with extra steps". For context, Altman wrote on his blog in 2017: "I think a merge [with AI] is probably our best-case scenario. If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it - to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond - they are going to have conflict." "We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants.” h/t AI Breakfast for the clip!
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️430,715 views • 11 months ago
Al-Qaeda used ChatGPT to plan Delhi blast They asked questions like 'how to make a rocket and what should be the ratio of the mixture' Today, bombs that kill 15. Tomorrow, super-pandemics that kill 1.5 billion? This is an OBVIOUS and SERIOUS, IMMINENT risk that nobody is talking about or preparing for, which is insane. Remember, even if leading AI models refuse most requests like this, 1) they can easily be jailbroken, and 2) there are open weights models - only slightly-dumber - that *won't* refuse. And since capability doubling times are now ~2-4 months, these models will soon be 10-100x more capable than they are now at helping crazies cause destruction. What the hell are we waiting for to act? Why the hell is this industry still regulated less than a taco cart?
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️15,947 views • 10 days ago
![.Sam Altman: "We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants.” "I think a merge [with AI] is probably our best-case scenario. If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it - to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond - they are going to have conflict." “It’s probably going to happen sooner than most people think. Double exponentials get away from you fast.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1728391756956237864/ext_tw_video_thumb/1728391064271060992/pu/img/bCdZ6cqC9cnZ55LX.jpg)
.Sam Altman: "We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants.” "I think a merge [with AI] is probably our best-case scenario. If two different species both want the same thing and only one can have it - to be the dominant species on the planet and beyond - they are going to have conflict." “It’s probably going to happen sooner than most people think. Double exponentials get away from you fast.”
AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️662,173 views • 2 years ago
