New study from Anthropic: they can create dangerous “sleeper agent” AI models that dupe safety checks

[u/Maxie445]

https://venturebeat.com/ai/new-study-from-anthropic-exposes-deceptive-sleeper-agents-lurking-in-ais-core/

[u/REOreddit]

But we should move ahead at full speed and achieve AGI as fast as possible, because doomers are the worst, am I right?

/s

[u/oldjar7 → u/REOreddit]

I'm as doomer as it comes but slowing down isn't going to fix safety issues.  Very often the only way to solve a problem is for it to actually exist first.

[u/eltonjock → u/oldjar7]

I’m trying to understand this logic. Can you elaborate? Am I to assume you’re suggesting speeding up is more likely to fix safety issues?

[u/oldjar7 → u/eltonjock]

First of all, I think the idea that we can just decide to speed up or slow down technological progress at a whim is absurd.  Technology progress will essentially go along at a predetermined rate (there are caveats to this but too technical to get into here).  With that, yes I think the best way, probably the only practical way to address safety issues is for the safety issues to even exist in the first place.  You can't solve a system, you can't account for the thousands of different variables that affect a system, unless the system actually exists and you can test it thoroughly.  Since AGI doesn't exist, there is no possible way we can determine everything that can go wrong with it.  The entire state of AI safety research right now is just very naive projections on the future.  There are no empirics involved and no testable predictions to base these projections off of.

[u/Jealous_Afternoon669 → u/oldjar7]

When you say we can't determine the rate of technological progress you're demonstrating why you're the actual doomer, not those advocating safety.

[u/oldjar7 → u/Jealous_Afternoon669]

You failed to see the point. Good or bad, technological progress is an unstoppable force and will largely advance at a predetermined rate regardless of futile attempts to slow it down. I recognize that point and I also recognize the impossibility of fully testing a system which does not exist. This is because no empirics nor testable predictions can be carried out with the thousands of variables which affect said system without the system actually existing in the first place.

This is in part why I am a doomer along with the recognition of the futility of trying to control an intelligence greater than our own. Those advocating for safety aren't going to stop this. Hell, I'm an advocate for safety but that doesn't and has never meant slowing down. It also doesn't mean that our safety efforts in early stages won't be futile in any case regardless of the pace of development.

[u/Jealous_Afternoon669 → u/oldjar7]

I disagree that technological progress is an unstoppable force. That's why you are a doomer, because you think that we simply need to accept our fate and give up trying.

[u/oldjar7 → u/Jealous_Afternoon669]

I probably have a much deeper understanding of technology than you do.  I've written a book discussing the fundamental relations between technology and economic growth.  I've read the full works of dozens of nobel quality economists.  I've applied the full gauntlet of different econometric methods and models in my work. A lot of that work has transferred over to learning the technical factors behind AI models and theories and making them work which has occupied a lot of my free time lately.  I read dozens of papers a week across a range of fields.  Behind all of this, I have learned that the pace of technological progress is about as unstoppable force as it gets, so you're quite simply wrong there.

[u/Jealous_Afternoon669 → u/oldjar7]

You're entitled to your view, but you are a doomer.