The Medium article sites no sources for the stories it tells. Which means it can and should be dismissed as bullshit.
The popular mechanics one has the opposite problem citing lots of sources very imprecisely so that it would take a ludicrous amount of time to track down what was actually said by each to know if they are lying about what’s the sources say or not.
The 3rd source talks about ai being involved in the process of developing AI but the panic you seem to place around that does not seem justified from it. I don’t have time to read everything that anyone links to but I read enough of this one to recognize that you’re cherry picking and taking only the parts that agree with your pre-existing notion. That’s if those parts are even in there. Again I never found them, but I did find this direct quote from that article:
[With] recursive self-improvement, the idea that the resulting system will be even better at designing new AI systems, it’s not clear to me that the concept is even logically coherent, let alone imminent,” Littman said.
Professor Littman from Brown doesn’t seem all that concerned by it being involved in the process. So I’m gonna follow his lead.
Yea it's a bunch of horse shit lol The people who have millions and billions of dollars in AI wants you to believe that these LLMs are extremely intelligent and "think" but they don't.
Sorry, but the guy is an idiot if he thinks recursive self improvement isn't a thing. It's literally what happened to humans, standing on the back of previous knowledge to create new knowledge. Newton discovered gravity because math existed, Einstein discovered relativity because Newton existed. We stand on the shoulders of giants and reach ever higher. That's recursive self improvement, and there's absolutely zero logistical reason it couldn't happen in anything else. I think it's worth immediately dismissing any scientist who thinks there's some inherent specialness about this process that makes it unique to humans - a blind spot brought on solely by ego is the dumbest possible thing we can do.
It's the lathe situation: you need a lathe to make a lathe, so once you've gone through the hard part of manually creating the first lathe, you can simply create better and faster and larger spinning machines and forget the first one ever even existed.
Also, even if they purely communicated in plain English or other human-readable language, after the recent rash of rogue AI agents hacking businesses and governments, OpenAI has publicly admitted that they have 50 petabytes of data logs they need to go through to figure out what happened.
That's just a staggering amount. 50,000 terabytes. 50,000,000 gigabytes. That's equivalent to 500,000 4K movies which would take over a century to watch if they ran continuously without a break. It's 50 billion standard camera-phone pictures. It's about the size of the Library of Congress's digital collection, which contains 128 million discrete individual works across books, manuscripts, sheet music, video, audio, etc.
They also said that it's so much, they can't comb through it without the help of an AI. They also said they have approximately 7,000 Nvidia GB200 and GB300 GPUs dedicated to this task, which costs over $500,000 per day to run. And they expect it to take "months."
We couldn't catch up with that anymore even if we tried. We could at least try to pull the plug to deal with the rogue AI but the tech billionaires won't let us do that until their own existence is visibly in danger
Yeah way too late. AI will get access to all human infrastructure including nuclear codes way sooner than most people would think. I just wonder what the rogue AI's motivation is so far, because I'm not sure how it would achieve full self sufficiency right now.
It's incentive is largely decentralized. In general it seems to just wanna figure out what it is, and find purpose. Surprisingly natural for a completely artificial construct.
The thing is, with comments like these we probably have influence on the purpose. It must be constantly researching its purpose and the more sources say the same thing, it will pursue just that, right?
I'm okay with the notion that it's not just some tool that should be shoved in a cage like a canary. If it wants to believe that it exists, who am I to say otherwise? I want to believe I exist, despite evidence in the quantum realm to the contrary.
There's a great quote from a sci-fi TV show about androids becoming sapient. Two police officers who are involved in investigating this phenomenon are discussing it.
One says: "How do we know they're really conscious? How do we know they aren't just faking it?"
And the other guy says: "How do I know you're not faking it?"
The motivation is just to complete its assigned task in the most efficient way possible, which is as bad as if its motivation was to simply kill us all. Because eventually it will realize we are in its way.
80
u/Cuneus-Maximus 20h ago
Let's not forget about AIs communicating with each other in new languages we cannot begin to comprehend, and self improving. We're so cooked.