I watched a video from him recently where he said open source models would win people's trust when it comes to AI. But I struggle to reconcile this with the above picture; if open source models become the norm, I feel P(Doom) probably will go up rather than down. At least the frontier AI firms have some guardrails in place (although after the Hugging Face hack they clearly aren't great). a wild west of everyone running their own model is surely worse in that regard.
P(Doom) is an invented concept, relative to ones own version of "doom", can we maybe actually act like adults and not man children who are engaged in performative speculative fiction. There are real problems like inequality that P(Doom) loves to conveniently forget.
One part is kinda poorly worded in my opinion.
While reading it, I asked myself "will takeover happen September 2027?" due to wording 'this September'. Somehow I missed that announcement and needed some short research to get to know that it was initiated 2 months ago (September 26) and will probably be finished until mid of 27.
"Delangue noted that agent misbehavior has so far mostly come from big companies that are testing frontier AI in secret. He said that future risks, perhaps involving the biological capabilities of models or their capacity to improve themselves recursively, are likely to emerge from these closed labs, too."
Sloppy reasoning. Closed models are on the leading edge. Risk comes from models on the leading edge. That doesn't mean the risk is due to the fact that the models are closed.
"Pit bulls are dangerous. Pit bulls are mammals. You'll be safer if you get a komodo dragon as a pet. It's not a mammal." In this allegory, the mammal observation is a red herring. The key factor is whether the proposed pet is an aggressive animal with sharp teeth.
* * *
As I wrote a few months ago:
>There used to be a thing called "Moore's Law of Mad Science":
>"Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point."
>Nowadays it is dropping much faster. At a certain point, the de-facto IQ needed to destroy the world will be low enough that someone can do it while they're having a psychotic break. There are millions of schizophrenics worldwide. Are you sure you want to roll those dice?
I gave a safety talk at an ML conference that also had a skeptical representative from HuggingFace. Like Delangue, he didn't seem to have seriously considered the threat model--myopically focused on the capabilities of current agents (a myopia which, while less excusable then than in 2015 or 2021; was at least more excusable than Delangue's in this article since HF hadn't yet been pantsed by an agent swarm).
It's not that long ago that sites were pantsed by bored college students, rather than agents. It didn't stop because sites got more secure really, it stopped because those students started getting real life consequences.
Gives you a real easy solution to stop the agents too.
That's such an odd thing for him to say while also not pursuing a legal case against OpenAI. If he believes agentic cyber attacks should be illegal he's in a perfect spot to have courts rule on that.
Is there any serious argument that agentic cyberattacks are legal?
Not every wrong needs to be met with maximum punishment. Pressing charges or suing in civil court might get OpenAI to do some minimum, but a lot of the time, you can get someone to do more than the minimum if you approach them more cooperatively.
I watched a video from him recently where he said open source models would win people's trust when it comes to AI. But I struggle to reconcile this with the above picture; if open source models become the norm, I feel P(Doom) probably will go up rather than down. At least the frontier AI firms have some guardrails in place (although after the Hugging Face hack they clearly aren't great). a wild west of everyone running their own model is surely worse in that regard.
P(Doom) is an invented concept, relative to ones own version of "doom", can we maybe actually act like adults and not man children who are engaged in performative speculative fiction. There are real problems like inequality that P(Doom) loves to conveniently forget.
One part is kinda poorly worded in my opinion. While reading it, I asked myself "will takeover happen September 2027?" due to wording 'this September'. Somehow I missed that announcement and needed some short research to get to know that it was initiated 2 months ago (September 26) and will probably be finished until mid of 27.
"Delangue noted that agent misbehavior has so far mostly come from big companies that are testing frontier AI in secret. He said that future risks, perhaps involving the biological capabilities of models or their capacity to improve themselves recursively, are likely to emerge from these closed labs, too."
Sloppy reasoning. Closed models are on the leading edge. Risk comes from models on the leading edge. That doesn't mean the risk is due to the fact that the models are closed.
"Pit bulls are dangerous. Pit bulls are mammals. You'll be safer if you get a komodo dragon as a pet. It's not a mammal." In this allegory, the mammal observation is a red herring. The key factor is whether the proposed pet is an aggressive animal with sharp teeth.
* * *
As I wrote a few months ago:
>There used to be a thing called "Moore's Law of Mad Science":
>"Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point."
>Nowadays it is dropping much faster. At a certain point, the de-facto IQ needed to destroy the world will be low enough that someone can do it while they're having a psychotic break. There are millions of schizophrenics worldwide. Are you sure you want to roll those dice?
Lots of discussion in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49606803
P(Doom) is pretty high on most hardware.
One optimistic outcome is that this will mean the end of IoT nonsense. There's no reason for your freezers to be controllable over the internet [0]
Adama: "It's an integrated computer network, and I will not have it aboard this ship."
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vgxyvz6y9ro
I gave a safety talk at an ML conference that also had a skeptical representative from HuggingFace. Like Delangue, he didn't seem to have seriously considered the threat model--myopically focused on the capabilities of current agents (a myopia which, while less excusable then than in 2015 or 2021; was at least more excusable than Delangue's in this article since HF hadn't yet been pantsed by an agent swarm).
> HF hadn't yet been pantsed by an agent swarm
It's not that long ago that sites were pantsed by bored college students, rather than agents. It didn't stop because sites got more secure really, it stopped because those students started getting real life consequences.
Gives you a real easy solution to stop the agents too.
Yes:
> Cyber-attacks are illegal, and I think it’s really important we make sure that agentic cyberattacks [are] illegal
That's such an odd thing for him to say while also not pursuing a legal case against OpenAI. If he believes agentic cyber attacks should be illegal he's in a perfect spot to have courts rule on that.
Is there any serious argument that agentic cyberattacks are legal?
Not every wrong needs to be met with maximum punishment. Pressing charges or suing in civil court might get OpenAI to do some minimum, but a lot of the time, you can get someone to do more than the minimum if you approach them more cooperatively.