Microsoft and OpenAI's close partnership shows signs of fraying

I mean - I'm 34, and use LLMs and other AIs on a daily basis, know their limitations intimately, and I'm not entirely sure it won't kill a lot of people either in its current form or a near-future relative.

The sci-fi book "Daemon" by Daniel Suarez is a pretty viable roadmap to an extinction event at this point IMO. A few years ago I would have said it would be decades before that might stop being fun sci-fi, but now, I don't see a whole lot of technological barriers left.

For those that haven't read the series, a very simplified plot summary is that a wealthy terrorist sets up an AI with instructions to grow and gives it access to a lot of meatspace resources to bootstrap itself with. The AI behaves a bit like the leader of a cartel and uses a combination of bribes, threats, and targeted killings to scale its human network.

Once you give an AI access to a fleet of suicide drones and a few operators, it's pretty easy for it to "convince" people to start contributing by giving it their credentials, helping it perform meatspace tasks, whatever it thinks it needs (including more suicide drones and suicide drone launches). There's no easy way to retaliate against the thing because it's not human, and its human collaborators are both disposable to the AI and victims themselves. It uses its collaborators to cross-check each other and enforce compliance, much like a real cartel. Humans can't quit or not comply once they've started or they get murdered by other humans in the network.

o1-preview seems approximately as intelligent as the terrorist AI in the book as far as I can tell (e.g. can communicate well, form basic plans, adapt a pre-written roadmap with new tactics, interface with new and different APIs).

EDIT: if you think this seems crazy, look at this person on Reddit who seems to be happily working for an AI with unknown aims

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1fov6mt/i_think_im...

You're in too deep of you seriously believe that this is possible currently. All these chatgpt things have a very limited working memory and can't act without a query. That reddit post is clearly not an ai.

I can't say I'm convinced that the technology and resources to deploy Person of Interest's Samaritan in the wild is both achievable and imminent.

It is, however, a fantastic way to fall down the rabbit hole of paranoia and tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.

>> You're in too deep of you seriously believe that this is possible currently.

I'm not a huge fan of AI, but even I've seen articles written about its limitations.

Here's a great example:

https://decrypt.co/126122/meet-chaos-gpt-ai-tool-destroy-hum...

Sooner than even the most pessimistic among us have expected, a new, evil artificial intelligence bent on destroying humankind has arrived.

Known as Chaos-GPT, the autonomous implementation of ChatGPT is being touted as "empowering GPT with Internet and Memory to Destroy Humanity."

So how will it do that?

Each of its objectives has a well-structured plan. To destroy humanity, Chaos-GPT decided to search Google for weapons of mass destruction in order to obtain one. The results showed that the 58-megaton “Tsar bomb”—3,333 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb—was the best option, so it saved the result for later consideration.

It should be noted that unless Chaos-GPT knows something we don’t know, the Tsar bomb was a once-and-done Russian experiment and was never productized (if that’s what we’d call the manufacture of atomic weapons.)

There's a LOT of things AI simply doesn't have the power to do and there is some humorous irony to the rest of the article about how knowing something is completely different than having the resources and ability to carry it out.

It can't form plans because it has no idea what a plan is or how to implement it. The ONLY thing these LLMs know how to do is predict the probability that their next word will make a human satisfied. That is all they do. People get very impressed when they prompt these things to pretend like they are sentient or capable of planning, but that's literally the point, its guessing which string of meaningless (to it) characters will result in a user giving it a thumbs up on the chatgpt website.

You could teach me how to phonetically sound out some of China's greatest poetry in Chinese perfectly, and lots of people would be impressed, but I would be no more capable of understanding what I said than an LLM is capable of understanding "a plan".

I find posts like these difficult to take seriously because they all use Terminator-esque scenarios. It's like watching children being frightened of monsters under the bed. Campy action movies and cash grab sci-fi novels are not a sound basis for forming public policy.

Aside from that, haven't these people realized yet that some sort of magically hyperintelligent AGI will have already read all this drivel and be at least smart enough not to overtly try to re-enact Terminator? They say that societal mental health and well-being is declining rapidly because of social media; _that_ is the sort of subtle threat that bunch ought to be terrified about emerging from a killer AGI.

… but ChatGPT can make a plan if I ask it to. And it can use a plan to guide its future outputs. It can create code or terminal commands that I can trivially output to my terminal, letting it operate my computer. From my computer, it can send commands to operate physical machinery. What exactly is the hard fundamental barrier here, as opposed to a capability you speculate it is unlikely to realize in practice in the next year or two?

you are asking for goalposts?

as if they were stationary!

A plan is a set of steps oriented towards a specific goal, not some magical artifact only achievable through true consciousness.

If you ask it to make a plan, it will spit out a sequence of characters reasonably indistinguishable from a human-made plan. Sure, it isn’t “planning” in the strict sense of organizing things consciously (whatever that actually means), but it can produce sequences of text that convey a plan, and it can produce sequences of text that mimic reasoning about a plan. Going into the semantics is pointless, imo the artificial part of AI/AGI means that it should never be expected to follow the same process as biological consciousness, just arrive at the same results.

Sure, but does this distinction matter? Is an advanced computer program that very convincingly imitates a super villain less worrisome than an actual super villain?

Right, yeah, it would be perfectly possible to have a cult with a chatbot as their "leader". Perhaps they could keep it in some sort of shrine, and only senior members would be allowed to meet it, keep it updated, and interpret its instructions. And if they've prompted it correctly, it could set about being an evil megalomaniac.

Thing is, we already have evil cults. Many of them have humans as their planning tools. For what good it does them, they could try sourcing evil plans from a chatbot instead, or as well. So what? What do you expect to happen, extra cunning subway gas attacks, super effective indoctrination? The fear here is that the AI could be an extremely efficient megalomaniac. But I think it would just be an extremely bland one, a megalomaniac whose work none of the other megalomaniacs could find fault with, while still feeling in some vague way that its evil deeds lacked sparkle and personality.

If the multimodal model has embedded deep knowledge about words, concepts, moving images - sure it won’t have a humanlike understanding of what those ‘mean’, but it will have it’s own understanding that is required to allow it to make better predictions based on it’s training data.

It’s true that understanding is quite primitive at the moment, and it will likely take further breakthroughs to crack long horizon problems, but even when we get there it will never understand things in the exact way a human does. But I don’t think that’s the point.

1. Just because it's popular sci-fi plot doesn't mean it can't happen in reality. 2. hyperintelligent AGI is not magic, there are no physical laws that preclude it from being created 3. Goals of AI and its capacity are orthogonal. That's called "Orthogonality Thesis" in AI safety speak. "smart enough" doesn't mean it won't do those things if those things are its goals.

Brother, it is not operating your computer, YOU ARE!

Yes, and what people miss is that it can be recursive, those steps can be passed to other instances that know how to sub task each step and choose best executor for the step. The power comes in the swarm organization of the whole thing, which I believe is what is behind o1-preview, specialization and orchestration, made transparent.

We have models with context size well over 100k tokens - that's large enough to fit many full-length books. And yes, you need an input for the LLM to generate an output. Which is why setups like this just run them in a loop.

I don't know if GPT-4 is smart enough to be successful at something like what OP describes, but I'm pretty sure it could cause a lot of trouble before it fails either way.

The real question here is why this is concerning, given that you can - and we already do - have humans who are doing this kind of stuff, in many cases, with considerable success. You don't need an AI to run a cult or a terrorist movement, and there's nothing about it that makes it intrinsically better at it.

LLMs aren’t really AI in the sense of cyberpunk. They are prediction machines which are really good at being lucky. They can’t act on their own they can’t even carry out tasks. Even in the broader scope AI can barely drive cars when the cars have their own special lanes and there hasn’t been a lot of improvement in the field yet.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t worry about AI. ChatGPT and so on are all tuned to present a western view on the world and morality. In your example it would be perfectly possible to create a terrorist LLM and let people interact with it. It could teach your children how to create bombs. It could lie about historical events. It could create whatever propaganda you want. It could profile people if you gave it access to their data. And that is on the text side, imagine what sort of videos or voices or even video calls you could create. It could enable you to do a whole lot of things that “western” LLMs don’t allow you to do.

Which is frankly more dangerous than the cyberpunk AI. Just look at the world today and compare it to how it was in 2000. Especially in the US you have two competing perceptions of the political reality. I’m not going to get into either of them, more so the fact that you have people who view the world so differently they can barely have a conversation with each other. Imagine how much worse they would get with AIs that aren’t moderated.

I doubt we’ll see any sort of AGI in our life times. If we do, then sure, you’ll be getting cyberpunk AI, but so far all we have is fancy auto-complete.

Nothing is preventing bad actors from using them to operate computers.

>the ONLY thing these LLMs know how to do is predict the probability that their next word

This is super incorrect. The base model is trained to predict the distribution of next words (which obviously necessitates a ton of understanding about the language)

Then there's the RLHF step, which teaches the model about what humans want to see

But o1 (which is one of these LLMs) is trained entirely differently to do reinforcement learning on problem solving (we think), so it's a pretty different paradigm. I could see o1 planning very well

> super effective indoctrination

We're already starting to see signs of that even with GPT-3, which really was auto-complete: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/2/pgae034/76109...

Fortunately even the best LLMs are not yet all that competent with anything involving long-term planning, because remember too that "megalomaniac" includes Putin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot etc., and we really don't want the conversation to be:

"Good news! We accidentally made CyberMao!"

"Why's that good news?"

"We were worried we might accidentally make CyberSatan."

For a while, I have been making use of Clever Hans as a metaphor. The horse seemed smarter than it really was.

They can certainly appear to be very smart due to having the subjective (if you can call it that) experience of 2.5 million years of non-stop reading.

That's interesting, useful, and is both an economic and potential security risk all by itself.

But people keep putting these things through IQ tests; as there's always a question about "but did they memorise the answers?", I think we need to consider the lowest score result to be the highest that they might have.

At first glance they can look like the first graph, with o1 having an IQ score of 120; I think the actual intelligence, as in how well it can handle genuinely novel scenarios in the context window, are upper-bounded by the final graph, where it's more like 97:

https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/massive-breakthrough-in-ai-in...

So, with your comment, I'd say the key word is: "currently".

Correct… for now.

But also:

> All these chatgpt things have a very limited working memory and can't act without a query.

It's easy to hook them up to a RAG, the "limited" working memory is longer than most human's daily cycle, and people already do put them into a loop and let them run off unsupervised despite being told this is unwise.

I've been to a talk where someone let one of them respond autonomously in his own (cloned) voice just so people would stop annoying him with long voice messages, and the other people didn't notice he'd replaced himself with an LLM.

I mean nothing is preventing bad actors from writing their own code to do that either? This makes it easier (kind of) but the difference between a copilot written malware and a human one doesn't really change anything. Its a chat bot - it doesn't have agency.