I see strong hints, from how AI has been developing over the past couple of years, that there’s plenty of room for increasing the predictive abilities of AI, without needing much increase in the AI’s steering abilities.
What are these hints? Because I don’t understand how this would happen. All that we need to add steering to predictive general models is to add an agent framework, e.g. a “predict what will make X happen best, then do that thing”—and the failures we see today in agent frameworks are predictive failures, not steering failures.
Unless the contention is that the AI systems will be great at predicting everything except how humans will react and how to get them to do what the AI wants, which very much doesn’t seem like the path we’re on. Or if the idea is to build narrow AI to predict specific domains, not general AI? (Which would be conceding the entire point IABIED is arguing.)
What are these hints? Because I don’t understand how this would happen. All that we need to add steering to predictive general models is to add an agent framework, e.g. a “predict what will make X happen best, then do that thing”—and the failures we see today in agent frameworks are predictive failures, not steering failures.
Unless the contention is that the AI systems will be great at predicting everything except how humans will react and how to get them to do what the AI wants, which very much doesn’t seem like the path we’re on. Or if the idea is to build narrow AI to predict specific domains, not general AI? (Which would be conceding the entire point IABIED is arguing.)
I guess “steering abilities” wasn’t quite the right way to describe what I meant.
I’ll edit it to “desire to do anything other than predict”.
I’m referring to the very simple strategy of leaving out the “then do that thing”.
Training an AI to predict X normally doesn’t cause an AI to develop a desire to cause X.
Aside from feasibility, I’m skeptical that anyone would build a system like this and not use it agentically.