| Are you going to also claim that the small primate, scaled up by , can’t be ML trained to be superhumanly intelligent? Ok. What about the chimp you do as a test? That can’t be made superhuman with scaling up and training? This kinda beggars belief, though maybe I’m missing something?
My claim is more that if we do get a chimp running at 10^3 and it somehow turns into ASI, I believe the resulting ASI is likely to be much more aligned, and we probably all get to live rather whatever we get scaling GPT6 etc.
I think that timelines for WBE if we’re trying to compete with the current AI companies in the free-market are substantially unlikely to happen (<5%). There’s a lot of tech missing for mass-manufacturing scanners etc, and to your point, I’m not sure the mouse-AI leads to immediate returns / revenue that you can go and get a bunch of VC funding for it anyway. Not enough to get to a human WBE fully funded by existing market mechanisms.
| I don’t think the AI companies have “zero problems” producing capabilities. I mean, that kinda contradicts the whole WBE plan, doesn’t it?
I think a human brain would have decisive headroom compared to current AIs. Potentially whatever is needed for RSI doesn’t exist in current AI or maybe never under the current regime, but it does exist in the human mind.
I also feel that a neuron-level scanning and emulation would not lead to any direct intelligence-algorithms breakthroughs. I think I could buy this argument pre LLMs. But we have current AIs where already know every single activation, and we don’t have any level of algorithmic understanding of what’s going on inside that leads us closer to any theory of intelligence.
My claim is more that if we do get a chimp running at 10^3 and it somehow turns into ASI, I believe the resulting ASI is likely to be much more aligned, and we probably all get to live rather whatever we get scaling GPT6 etc.
Ok but I don’t think this is very relevant? My point is that, before you get something powerful & aligned, before that point, you got something that someone else could turn into something powerful & not-aligned by doing non-safe machine learning with your thing as a component / ingredient.
I think a human brain would have decisive headroom compared to current AIs. Potentially whatever is needed for RSI doesn’t exist in current AI or maybe never under the current regime, but it does exist in the human mind.
So then if a project gets a true full human WBE, before that point it created capabilities, not already present in an AI, but yes in a computer. At that point, those capabilities could be expropriated and trained on by AI capabilities researchers.
| Are you going to also claim that the small primate, scaled up by , can’t be ML trained to be superhumanly intelligent? Ok. What about the chimp you do as a test? That can’t be made superhuman with scaling up and training? This kinda beggars belief, though maybe I’m missing something?
My claim is more that if we do get a chimp running at 10^3 and it somehow turns into ASI, I believe the resulting ASI is likely to be much more aligned, and we probably all get to live rather whatever we get scaling GPT6 etc.
I think that timelines for WBE if we’re trying to compete with the current AI companies in the free-market are substantially unlikely to happen (<5%). There’s a lot of tech missing for mass-manufacturing scanners etc, and to your point, I’m not sure the mouse-AI leads to immediate returns / revenue that you can go and get a bunch of VC funding for it anyway. Not enough to get to a human WBE fully funded by existing market mechanisms.
| I don’t think the AI companies have “zero problems” producing capabilities. I mean, that kinda contradicts the whole WBE plan, doesn’t it?
I think a human brain would have decisive headroom compared to current AIs. Potentially whatever is needed for RSI doesn’t exist in current AI or maybe never under the current regime, but it does exist in the human mind.
I also feel that a neuron-level scanning and emulation would not lead to any direct intelligence-algorithms breakthroughs. I think I could buy this argument pre LLMs. But we have current AIs where already know every single activation, and we don’t have any level of algorithmic understanding of what’s going on inside that leads us closer to any theory of intelligence.
Ok but I don’t think this is very relevant? My point is that, before you get something powerful & aligned, before that point, you got something that someone else could turn into something powerful & not-aligned by doing non-safe machine learning with your thing as a component / ingredient.
So then if a project gets a true full human WBE, before that point it created capabilities, not already present in an AI, but yes in a computer. At that point, those capabilities could be expropriated and trained on by AI capabilities researchers.