[jadbox]

This seems... dangerously careless. What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely? Sure humans also do this, but we're talking about a new level of 0day exploit carried out at scale. Sure, maybe it won't, but do you trust a hallucinating, left-brained, internet-trained intelligence to be strictly logical and mindful for all it's actions that is taking self autonomously (as this project aims to do)?

[vbezhenar]

As long as AI is available to general public, I can guarantee you that there are hundreds of developers trying to let GPT to take over the world by providing it all the APIs it asks for.

I'd work on it myself if I would knew enough about it and would have enough free time.

Asking millions of humans to be responsible is asking water to be dry.

It should either be regulated to hell or we should accept that it'll escape if it's even possible with current technology.

[mrfinn]

Regulations simply don't work whenever there's economical (human) interest. (See: Drugs). The cat is out of the bag, we just have to think how we face the new scenario.

[roflyear]

Should we regulate everything you don't "[know] enough about it and would have enough free time. [to learn about it?]"

Isn't it silly to jump to these conclusions when yourself are admitting you really don't know anything about the tech?

[visarga]

No, it's a legit concern. Both things will happen - there will be abuses, and there will be good uses. It will be a complicated mess, like viruses interacting with anti-viruses, continuous war. My hope is on AGI learning to balance out as many interacting agents.

[roflyear]

Sure there will be abuses, but not in this way, I don't think. GPT at this point isn't capable of creating novel computer viruses.

If you want to scrape random websites and have GPT hammer at them for old vulnerabilities, I think you could get that to work, but to what gain? You'd be spending a crap ton of cash on API requests and compute, and people do this without GPT obviously. Cost is probably not worth it here for attackers.

Then, I'd hope OpenAI would have some way to detect this and shut these people down. I doubt they do right now, but that'd be my hope ...

[vbezhenar]

We should regulate everything which could cause a mass havoc. Like some chemicals, like radio-active isotopes, like nuclear research, like creating viruses.

Is AI in the same category? Some respectable people think so.

[chasd00]

“Regulation” is pointless here. It’s bits and bytes, it makes about as much sense as when regulating encryption algorithms was attempted.

[WinstonSmith84]

it seems to query the internet, get a response, send it to OpenAI wait ... get the response back from openAI, repeats. Any old school security scanner is 1000x more efficient, not to mention that API requests to OpenAI are quite limited.

What's eventually dangerous is that it may execute scripts on your own machine, so if it were to do some funky things, that could be rather the danger .. for yourself

[roflyear]

> What if it uses the internet to seek out zero day vulnerabilities and exploit them routinely?

How would GPT-4 make this more likely or scalable?

[ALittleLight]

There is the possibility of API upgrades at OpenAI flipping this from "not dangerous" to "dangerous". If the AI just needs some amount of intelligence to become dangerous, then it may cross that threshold suddenly - and with OpenAI developers unaware that their next round of changes will be automatically deployed to an autonomous agent and with the auto-GPT runners unaware that new changes may substantially increase the power of the model.

[roflyear]

I'm not really sure why we are assuming that these language models ever can have any form of intelligence?

To me, this is just like saying "we don't know if the latest CPU released by intel will enable Linux to become intelligent"

[ALittleLight]

Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now. You can have GPT-4 take SAT tests, play Chess, write poetry, predict what will happen in different social scenarios, answer theory of mind questions, ask questions, solve programming puzzles, etc. There are some measures that GPTs are clearly below human levels, some where they are far beyond, and some where they are within human range. The question as to whether or not language models have any form of intelligence has been definitively answered - yes, they can and do - by existence proof.

What definition or description of intelligence do you use such that you doubt that language models could have it? Would you have had this same definition in the year 2010?

[mjr00]

> Language models obviously have some form of intelligence right now.

This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.

[ALittleLight]

I take intelligence to be a general problem solving ability. I think that's close to what most people mean by the term. By that definition it's clear that LLMs do have some level of intelligence - in some dimensions greater, lesser, or within the range of human intelligence.

What definition do you have for intelligence and how do LLMs fail to meet it?

[tanseydavid]

>> This is not "obvious" in any sense of the word. At best, it's highly debatable.

Does a dog or cat have intelligence?

If you answered no, then I would ask if you don't you believe that by some measure a dog or cat has more intelligence than a rock?

And as a follow-on I would ask if you think GPT demonstrates more intelligence than a dog or a cat.

But perhaps you believe that in every one of these examples there is not a single case where it "obviously has some form of intelligence."

(I am really trying to highlight the semantic ambiguities)

[mythrwy]

Would you settle for "behave exactly as if they had some form of intelligence"?

Because from where I sit it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.

[roflyear]

Is stockfish intelligent?

[ALittleLight]

Stockfish is not general. LLMs are able to not only play chess but also do a wide variety of tasks similar to humans. If I had a chat window open with you, what would you be able to do or say that an unrestricted ChatGPT could not?

[tanseydavid]

>> Is stockfish intelligent?

It isn't general intelligence but I would argue that it is more intelligent than a new-born human being.

[visarga]

Have you seen what they can do? /s

[roflyear]

Yeah next time someone says this to me in earnest I'm going to lose my mind.

[jstanley]

It doesn't. It makes the consequences more dramatic, if it (accidentally, even!) works out how to create its own successor, because at that point the genie is out of the bottle and you won't get it back in.

[visarga]

Needs a big honking datacenter or billions of compute credits and safety for 6-12 months.

[tanseydavid]

Doesn't Alpaca seem to suggest that assumption is no longer true?

[visarga]

Alpaca rides on LLaMA. And LLaMA was trained on 1T tokens for a long time. The fine-tuning takes one hour with low rank adaptation. But pre-training a new model takes months.

[roflyear]

Yeah maybe there is that possibility, but there is the possibility of a person doing that too. GPT-4 is probably less probably to be able to do that than a person.

[jadbox]

I'm not really picking on GPT4, but My point really applies to any LLM on autonomous Internet connected mode.

[roflyear]

Yeah, I don't mean to be specific about GPT-4 either, it's just the most powerful model so often convenient to use as an example.

[sva_]

Not sure if OpenAI has shut down any 'experiments' before, but this might be a candidate.

[mrfinn]

Wait for somebody mixing the concepts of "virus" and "AI". And we better begin to prepare some kind of AI sentinels because the question is not "if", but "when".

[ModernMech]

According to Agent Smith, virus + intelligence = humanity.

[mrfinn]

I don't remember Mr. Smith mentioning anything about intelligence :-)

[tanseydavid]

According to Bill Hicks, virus + shoes = humanity.

[amrb]

Given ChatGpt lowers the entry to programming, I'd be worried about teenagers writing malware sooner than AI supremacy.

[ActorNightly]

I honestly appreciate new woke meta of fearmongering against sentient AIs. It's a welcome break from the anti capitalism woke meta.

[reb]

Breaking news from HN user ActorNightly: Anti-AI Visionary Elon Musk is a woke soyboy now. Will antifa's reign of terror ever end?

[ActorNightly]

This reminds me very much of the time when someone from NASA came out with an article about them working on a hypothetical warp drive, and then everyone literally believed that we are going to have a FTL warp drive, because people from NASA were working on it.

[chasd00]

Same screeching and pearl clutching as always. Covid has wound down, trump is out of office, Twitter is still there (unfortunately). People have to have something to get hysterical about and this is it for now.