do you refer to your Clarification 2, or do you mean something else?
but more importantly, since you are saying
say I’ve got 1000x the gpt4 flops and that my architecture is to transformers as convolutions are to simple MLPs in vision (ie a lot better)
no, sorry, you are way deep in the danger zone, and whether people can proceed at all with something like that really depends on the state of the field of AI existential safety at the time when that level of flops and architecture are feasible… if our understanding of AI existential safety is what it is today, but people are proceeding with this magnitude of compute and architecture improvements, our chances are really bad...
there is no generic answer here which does not depend on the state of research which has not been successfully accomplished yet...
so the only answer is: be very aware of the state of the art of research in AI existential safety (that should really hopefully be part of the requirements to this kind of training runs by the time we get to those compute and architecture improvements)… one can’t get a pilot’s license without understanding certain things about plane safety; the runs you are describing should require people being safety-qualified in this sense as well...
so
an answer like “here’s how to get strong evidence of danger so you know when to stop training” is valid but “here’s how to wipe out the danger” is much better.
In a sane world, people will have to take courses and pass exams where they must demonstrate that they know the “consensus answers” to these question before doing runs with the compute and architecture you are describing.
And we’ll need to get something resembling “consensus answers” before this is possible.
So the answer is: one will need an honestly earned official certificate showing one knows the answers to these questions. At the moment, no one knows those answers.
Please restate last paragraph as instructions/submission if you’re submitting
do you refer to your Clarification 2, or do you mean something else?
but more importantly, since you are saying
no, sorry, you are way deep in the danger zone, and whether people can proceed at all with something like that really depends on the state of the field of AI existential safety at the time when that level of flops and architecture are feasible… if our understanding of AI existential safety is what it is today, but people are proceeding with this magnitude of compute and architecture improvements, our chances are really bad...
there is no generic answer here which does not depend on the state of research which has not been successfully accomplished yet...
so the only answer is: be very aware of the state of the art of research in AI existential safety (that should really hopefully be part of the requirements to this kind of training runs by the time we get to those compute and architecture improvements)… one can’t get a pilot’s license without understanding certain things about plane safety; the runs you are describing should require people being safety-qualified in this sense as well...
so
In a sane world, people will have to take courses and pass exams where they must demonstrate that they know the “consensus answers” to these question before doing runs with the compute and architecture you are describing.
And we’ll need to get something resembling “consensus answers” before this is possible.
So the answer is: one will need an honestly earned official certificate showing one knows the answers to these questions. At the moment, no one knows those answers.