To me, the idea of “fully human-level capable AI” is a double myth. It works, in so far as we do not try to ascribe concrete capabilities to the model. Anything human-level that can be parallelized is per definition super-human. That’s why to me it’s a myth in the first place. Additionally, human-level capabilities just make very little sense to me in a model. Is this a brain simulation, and does it feel boredom and long for human rights? Or is this “just” a very general problem solving tool, something akin to an actually accurate vision-language model? This is a categorical difference.
Accurate, general problem solving tools are far more likely and, in the wrong hands, can probably cause far more harm than a “virtual human” ever could. On the other hands, the simulated brain raises many more ethical concerns, I would say.
To actually answer the question, I’m not concerned about a fast takeoff. There are multiple reasons for this:
Anything remotely close in performance as the hypothesized $10 billion model will also have massive incentive to be deployed, serving as a heads up.
As far as I’m aware, almost all systems of intelligence that we have built thus far do scale, but scale with strongly diminished returns. A “mere” increase in training time, model size, and data availability & quality is likely insufficient.
Then there remains the entire discussion of model actualization in the world and a goal deviating to the point of being a threat to someone, let alone everyone
Yes, until we set rigorous terms and prove otherwise, there is certainly a possibility. But compared to “mundane” worries like climate change and socioeconomic inequality this potential existential threat does not even register.
To me, the idea of “fully human-level capable AI” is a double myth. It works, in so far as we do not try to ascribe concrete capabilities to the model. Anything human-level that can be parallelized is per definition super-human. That’s why to me it’s a myth in the first place. Additionally, human-level capabilities just make very little sense to me in a model. Is this a brain simulation, and does it feel boredom and long for human rights? Or is this “just” a very general problem solving tool, something akin to an actually accurate vision-language model? This is a categorical difference.
Accurate, general problem solving tools are far more likely and, in the wrong hands, can probably cause far more harm than a “virtual human” ever could. On the other hands, the simulated brain raises many more ethical concerns, I would say.
To actually answer the question, I’m not concerned about a fast takeoff. There are multiple reasons for this:
Anything remotely close in performance as the hypothesized $10 billion model will also have massive incentive to be deployed, serving as a heads up.
As far as I’m aware, almost all systems of intelligence that we have built thus far do scale, but scale with strongly diminished returns. A “mere” increase in training time, model size, and data availability & quality is likely insufficient.
Then there remains the entire discussion of model actualization in the world and a goal deviating to the point of being a threat to someone, let alone everyone
Yes, until we set rigorous terms and prove otherwise, there is certainly a possibility. But compared to “mundane” worries like climate change and socioeconomic inequality this potential existential threat does not even register.