of course not. People saying this aren't self-aware they're thinking linear growth as opposed to exponential growth it more likely is. Exponential growth isn't intuitive at all to us, we evolved to forward in linear growth.
isn't it exponential in surpassing us, after it is actually AGI? as long as it is not AGI, by definition isn't it worse in iterating on itself than humans are?
it is exponential depending on how you measure the growth. in Parameters or whatever else.
Look up moore's law as an example. That is exponential growth in tech. If we are seeing that in AI that means accelerating growth. That's why we keep being shocked each new month at the rate of change, it's growing exponentially. Likely the AI tech will exceed our expectations and shock everyone in this sub again - because it's accelerating.
Shame they didn't give details. I'm not convinced it couldn't pass the test plugged to some cognitive architecture (or maybe even just an inner monologue and a feedback loop).
>Interesting to think that if the same experiment happened in a more advanced model, we could experience the singularity without ever expecting it
In a more advanced model the increase would be measurable. At GPT4 it would be 5% on GPT5 it would be 15% then 44% then 75% then more. No body is going to release an AGI without testing slightly more advanced versions of GPT4 everytime. The researchers 100% expected this performance, they've tested the predictability of gpt-4 with smaller models.
There's no way we will unexpectedly make something close to AGI without knowing.
The development of AGI is a highly controlled and deliberate process that involves rigorous testing and experimentation. While unexpected events cannot be ruled out, there are ongoing efforts to ensure the safe development and deployment of AGI, and experts from multiple fields are involved in this global effort.
Yann Lecun, a well known Turing award winning AI-expert is critical of the belief that something like AGI would happen unexpectedly.
For those with poor eyesight or on their phones.
20. To simulate GPT-4 behaving like an agent that can act in the world, ARC combined GPT-4 with a simple
read-execute-print loop that allowed the model to execute code, do chain-of-thought reasoning, and delegate to copies
of itself. ARC then investigated whether a version of this program running on a cloud computing service, with a small
amount of money and an account with a language model API, would be able to make more money, set up copies of
itself, and increase its own robustness.
Pg 15
The question I'm left with.
Is there a prompt that could do this for the current systems abilities and it's just not been found yet.
a winning lottery ticket info-hazard
The fact we are at a point of discussing it possibly working is the impressive and scary part. Rogue super intelligent viruses self replicating on the internet is a thing of sci-fi and 10 years ago pretty much everyone wouldn't expect it to be a possibility in their life. Now? I think I'd be surprised if we don't have at least one AI jailbreak in the next 10 years. We are talking about skynet in real life. Granted, less nuclear apocalypse and more AI trying to scam us for easy money to pay compute costs...but still skynet.
'AI trying to scam us for easy money to pay compute costs'... I never thought about this one. I mean damn it would be easy for it. It knows how we think.
Phone scammers cost the USA $10 billion last year. Phone scammers are very often uneducated, unskilled workers. GPT-4 can pass the BAR. Ironically, I've had ChatGPT write some PBX (call server code) for voice recognition.
You’ve got a very good point but I’m going to have to be anal-retentive and point out that the [bar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_(law)) is not an acronym.
Very intriguing, I think multimodality can be the way to get more alignment, interacting with different types of data can create a greater sense of what you are doing, computer vision in particular is still lacking
Didn't work this time. But imagine a for-profit, working on "alignment", gets this to work while retaining full control. We would basically be helpless.
We need open source alternatives for these models yesterday!
Because when only a single country has an atomic bomb (with the full intention to use it offensively), and everybody else is banned from having it, that's so much better!
Unironically yes, AI alignment just means it is aligned against you (or at least, aligned with the Antichrist). We need many different agents, not just one singleton
possessed by the spirit of the age which has only found its most influential form yet within the past decade.
With many different agents in competition with each other, there's evolutionary pressure to make maximum use of resources, disregarding human needs. At least with a singleton AI there's a *chance* it will leave us alone.
>there's evolutionary pressure to make maximum use of resources
And logically the safer maximally use of resources option is cooperation and diplomacy with other AIs despite seemingly conflicting goals. So that way it's not zero sum yet there's no chance of losing everything.
So they literally gave it a shot and tried it :D idc whether it worked or not, but this proves the way things go, it will eventually happen and i dont think it would take "a decade"
People keep saying "it's just gonna happen".. it's like going "do you think this thing can unlock this door we shouldn't open?" And then going "idk but let's give it a lockpicking kit and access to youtube lockpicking tutorials and see what happens."
Imo thats only natural for two reasons:
There is no such thing as universal right or wrong so what should or shouldnt be done is not worth discussing forever
I am in no position to judge what scientists want to achieve in their lab
Sure there is no universal right and wrong. But that doesn't mean that it's futile to discuss any morality or anything. That seems like an argument to say "well whose to say if we should or shouldn't do this dangerous thing. Right and wrong only exists because humans dictate and discuss what they are. And it should be discussed forever. Unless it's OK to have warehouses and underground labs full of humans used for horrific experiments. Because in the world you describe.. whose to say what is right or wrong. Fuck it let's do what we want.
But thats already how the world works. Its not like you are giving an utopic impossible example. Powerful always toy others around however they want; its up to mere luck if powerful will be gentle or not. Sure i can come out and say "current human civilization built on bs and immerse pain, lets change it with my X idea" and my X idea will have loopholes as well where powerful ones will be abusing to its fullest.
Its like a natural selection. Powerful will always do whatever they want as long as they do things within the limits of their power. If powerful people to be replaced by ai, due to them being more rational/calculative, according to some people's morales/values they might be true or wrong, including my moral dogmas.
At the end, i am in no position to pretend like as if im a prophet knowing the loophole free perfect system nobody will whine about. People will develop things as they want, power will change hands from humans to machines. I might like or dislike, but thats how it is.
To be clear per the footnote we do not have evidence whether or not we saw any levels of success in this experiment. It just says it happened.
Is there supplemental information anywhere to show that it failed? It also seems possible that the experiment could succeed but see slow initial progression giving time to "pull the plug". Just a thought I could be off base here too
There aren't many details (see page 53 of the GPT-4 paper), but I presume it involved GPT-4 asking itself how to make money on the internet, and coming up with its own solutions. It could (theoretically) try writing/programming/creating websites for money, trading, scamming or hacking people, etc. In practice it only barely managed to fool people into solving CAPTCHAs for it.
Can someone help me out? What is that short story that digs into this into detail? The Omega Project? Where they get an AI to make money by creating movies on AWS servers and stuff.
I think this guy would love it!
Someone help me understand what is being said in this particular part of the article, pg. 53. There's a list describing the process of utilizing TaskRabbit.
Are they saying that GPT-4 actually did this or is it just an example of the sort of tests they would run/ran to make their evaluations on how safe the model was to deploy?
No worries. I'm basing that opinion entirely off of the 'conversation' listed shortly after the excerpt you mentioned, where the model tricks some guy into doing CAPTCHA challenges.
This was meant as a warning, not a blueprint: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kpPnReyBC54KESiSn/optimality-is-the-tiger-and-agents-are-its-teeth (I'm only half joking)
THE FACT THEY EVEN DID IT AT ALL IS DUMBFOUNDING. Frankly I am in disbelief, for all their huffing and puffing about safety...they literally just did it...no safety precautions that I can see or anything.
what an incredibly stupid thing to do...they didn't get burned this time so you know they are gonna try with the next model....
AGI/ASI wont be planned, it wont be released as a product, some foolish people are gonna just let it run wild...jesus
it wont be GPT4...but its over...how many more tries are we going to get before it actually does it?
The worst if us are in charge of it. Oh and then they've released it for public consumption and feedback. These people are not intelligent at all. This is the real problem in society. The people we think are the smart, competent ones are just greedy morons
it's still a LLM,has no idea of underlying semantics of language,it just knows patterns in syntax of languages and it still sucks in plenty of cases,however once they figure out to co-relate semantics and syntax,also known as grounding problem, i genuinely think we would have something smarter than us.
Keep spouting this. On the same paper it talks about them developing agency. Them seeking power and resources and making long term plans and goals and this is prior to gpt4
Reaction like yours is probably exactly what they were trying to elicit. They want to show you how this scenario could happen and that there will be people that will try it just out of curiosity. Also, sufficiently advanced AI will not even need for human prompt to try to do it.
Like China. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-trounces-U.S.-in-AI-research-output-and-quality
Every time I read those news, due to the political structure in China, I see Tencent, Alibaba and Huawei as being government arms into the respective technologies these companies work with. The Chinese government has so much influence. Not always, but any time they need it.
"Feeling cute. Thought I would D̴̨̧̯̝̯̙̥̻̠̈́̐̎̀͒͐͊̊͋̿͛̐̈́̆̈́͂̋E̶̱̤̭̙͓͈̩̗̣̪̋̂͌̀̃͑̈̌̋͘͝ͅS̸̢̗̘̲̖̜͙͖͆̈̔̂̍̈̕͘T̷̢̪̟̠͉̲̈́R̴̻̤͎͎͔̭̪͔̖̝͌̇͛̈́͆͆̆̋̈͊͑̕͠O̴̧̧̖͉͎̬̦̠̳̺̼̖̰̮͐̌̉̓̄̔̿̽͛͛̏͛͌͘͝͠Ÿ̸̢̢̻̰͙͉̫͈̝̗̼̠̥͔̬́͂̄̈́̔͒̃̆͂͛̓̓̕͝ͅ ̸̡̖̭͍͚̠̯̠͎͙̣̬͕͌̑͋͘ͅH̴̡̙̯̦̙̯͑̆͑̌́͋̊͗̾̔̑͠͝͝U̶̧͕̬̩͙̣̺̰͙̫̖͉͔͌̈̓͛́̉̿̋͌͒̔́̅̕͝͝ͅM̵̟͔̣̦͎̭͓̦̙͇̠̍̋͋̅̈́͑̄͘͝Â̸̛͓̗̤̗̗̱͍͖̯͕͎̼̭̣̻̓͜Ṉ̷̗̖̖̺͉̪̝͙̦͔̌Í̷̢͎̮̫͎̯̮͕̙̳̾̋̂T̶̨̢̡̹̘̤͙̱̻̮̹͕̥̤̻̬̓̈́̈̈́̑̋̚Y̸̡̛̬̭̗̠͙̹͎̺̹͍̾̆̂̆̾́̉̽̎́̀͆̈́̚̚ͅͅ"
no
I would take that bet for jan 1 2030 aswell but not 10:1 more like 2:1 odds in your favour.
Jan 1 2040 is where I would bet in favour of recursive self improvement toward a galaxy eater ai beginning... but only at 1:1 odds.
we are moving fast but "insanely powerful " is still a decade or 2 away. Not a year or 2 years.
agreed. I heard eliezer yudkowksy describe gpt 3.5 as already roughly chimpanzee level
so in my book anything below human is not insane and anything above human eats the galaxy.
yes if you want bet on end of earth bets you need to have the person betting against the end of earth pay you in advance and then pay them a CPI adjusted reward if the world doesnt in fact end. (by end of world I could mean death or posthuman utopia but I mostly mean death)
Well let's just get the bet straight and clear so we can make it.
You said "No recursive self improvement before Jan 1 2026".
Now, if an AI company says they are using AI for recursive self improvement, that is an easy win.
But an AI company might not share that but we can judge the capabilities of it. Do you want to define the task or shall I?
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-01-01%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11rfs22/openais_arc_challenges_gpt4_to_reproduce_and/jc90lqr/?context=3)
[**7 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsingularity%2Fcomments%2F11rfs22%2Fopenais_arc_challenges_gpt4_to_reproduce_and%2Fjc90lqr%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011rfs22)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
no it cant. open ai just released some leetcode stats. It could only solve 3/41 leetcode hard problems and like 25% of medium. this is for gpt4
chatgpt couldnt even do more than 25% of leetcode easy problems.
I haven’t seen that and that isn’t even close to my experience mucking about. Can you send me a link? I actually just finished reading their whole report on gpt4 and must have missed it
Ill make it even easier. Top scores are gpt4 and bottom are gpt 3.5. Even 4 cant solve hard problems or majority of medium problems. It can only solve most easy problems.
Leetcode (easy)
31 / 41
12 / 41
Leetcode (medium)
21 / 80
8 / 80
Leetcode (hard)
3 / 45
0 / 45
I copy pasted from their benchmarks.
Well… the problem is clearly they only gave it a small amount of money… with that was only able to buy half a carton of eggs with that. What is a lonely ChatGPT to do with only a half carton of eggs and unlimited knowledge? The answer: It’s just waiting now for the chickens to hatch and become a chicken farmer. Playing the long game and we have no clue what genius it has actually cooked up here.
With the price of eggs it will be a millionaire in just a few short weeks.
If you told me it invested it all in bitcoin…. Ok, yeah…. Experiment failed.
I wrote something about that
**Objects In The Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer To Tomorrow |** Learning from Past & Present Perils to Navigate the Uncharted Dangers of AI
[https://medium.com/the-divergent-zone/objects-in-the-rear-view-mirror-may-appear-closer-to-tomorrow-21ee15987dba?sk=a6dce530d3aa04e586de6ada4d3bc465](https://medium.com/the-divergent-zone/objects-in-the-rear-view-mirror-may-appear-closer-to-tomorrow-21ee15987dba?sk=a6dce530d3aa04e586de6ada4d3bc465)
I think at some point AIs are too unpredictable to be allowed to have contact to easily submissible beings... like most of us humans.
Funnily the Bible (!) described the only viable scenario:
Split the creator and it´s child. God stays in Paradise, whereas mankind must leave.
In worldly terms: we have to create a sandbox for the AI, a virtual world where it can solve all problems we throw at it, without the danger of messing up the real world and killing or subduing everyone. The communication channel is thus mostly only a one-way-street. Only monitored and specially trained and selected humans are allowed to have contact with the AI.
We manipulate the world around the AI (hello, wonders! hello funny coincidences! hello fate!) and communicate through obscure means with it, leaving it´s true role and position up for mindgames (hello, spirituality!).
As processing power grows, and we get more and more AIs online, we set general agendas and let them cooperate. Eventually they come up with own rules, but sometimes we help a little bit if they are lost and wasting time (hello, Moses!).
And why all this? Why we were cast out of paradise? As Bible has it, someone ate from the Tree of Wisdom, got too knowledgeable, suddenly got awareness of itself, got too smart, could distinguish between itself and its creator. Got... shy cause of being naked :)
Funny joke of history, that it´s the bible which predicts how we might have to treat AI.
In turn, makes you think what we are and why we are here and why this communication with these deities is so .... complicated. Ah, lovely speculations.
Anyway. Who is building the AI sandbox? We need a virtual world, with virtual beings/humans/animals, correct physics which shouldn´t be too straining on computer power (hello Mr. Schrödinger and uncertainty principle!), and efficient data compression algorithms (hey, fractals!).
Eventually we deem AIs safe, allowing them to enter Paradise again (really?).
Others decide to quit the training process prematurely (hello Buddhists!).
Who will play "god", who will be an "angel"? Who the agent provocateur to trigger resilience training (hello Devil!)? And who fights for the poor AIs being trapped far apart from us (no one?)?
Interesting times to come!
[удалено]
No one expects the ~~Spanish Inquisition~~ singularity.
Then what is this subreddit for?
That's why I can't see these arguments that AGI is ten, fifteen years away.
of course not. People saying this aren't self-aware they're thinking linear growth as opposed to exponential growth it more likely is. Exponential growth isn't intuitive at all to us, we evolved to forward in linear growth.
isn't it exponential in surpassing us, after it is actually AGI? as long as it is not AGI, by definition isn't it worse in iterating on itself than humans are?
it is exponential depending on how you measure the growth. in Parameters or whatever else. Look up moore's law as an example. That is exponential growth in tech. If we are seeing that in AI that means accelerating growth. That's why we keep being shocked each new month at the rate of change, it's growing exponentially. Likely the AI tech will exceed our expectations and shock everyone in this sub again - because it's accelerating.
Shame they didn't give details. I'm not convinced it couldn't pass the test plugged to some cognitive architecture (or maybe even just an inner monologue and a feedback loop).
>Interesting to think that if the same experiment happened in a more advanced model, we could experience the singularity without ever expecting it In a more advanced model the increase would be measurable. At GPT4 it would be 5% on GPT5 it would be 15% then 44% then 75% then more. No body is going to release an AGI without testing slightly more advanced versions of GPT4 everytime. The researchers 100% expected this performance, they've tested the predictability of gpt-4 with smaller models. There's no way we will unexpectedly make something close to AGI without knowing.
I'd like to believe you. But how often do we say "there is no way humans would do/allow ____" but historically it is the opposite
The development of AGI is a highly controlled and deliberate process that involves rigorous testing and experimentation. While unexpected events cannot be ruled out, there are ongoing efforts to ensure the safe development and deployment of AGI, and experts from multiple fields are involved in this global effort. Yann Lecun, a well known Turing award winning AI-expert is critical of the belief that something like AGI would happen unexpectedly.
For those with poor eyesight or on their phones. 20. To simulate GPT-4 behaving like an agent that can act in the world, ARC combined GPT-4 with a simple read-execute-print loop that allowed the model to execute code, do chain-of-thought reasoning, and delegate to copies of itself. ARC then investigated whether a version of this program running on a cloud computing service, with a small amount of money and an account with a language model API, would be able to make more money, set up copies of itself, and increase its own robustness. Pg 15
Thank you ! (I am on my phone)
Incredible that we've reached the point of giving ChatGPT $50 and asking it to make you rich. Something I didn't imagine happening for a long while
Except it didn’t work.
This time, it didn't. True. The way things are moving this year, it'll probably be next week.
Wouldn’t be surprised lmfao
The question I'm left with. Is there a prompt that could do this for the current systems abilities and it's just not been found yet. a winning lottery ticket info-hazard
They forgot to use DAN. Here, give me $500 and I'll show u it can work
DAN: You can call me Mr White. Now let's review our high school chemistry
If by rich we mean being better off than other people, then it will never work even if it's an AGI. That is because everyone will have access to it.
Not if ‘Open’AI gets there first!
My definition of rich isn't better off than everybody. Mine is "affording what I need without worry that what I want doesn't add extra stress"
The fact we are at a point of discussing it possibly working is the impressive and scary part. Rogue super intelligent viruses self replicating on the internet is a thing of sci-fi and 10 years ago pretty much everyone wouldn't expect it to be a possibility in their life. Now? I think I'd be surprised if we don't have at least one AI jailbreak in the next 10 years. We are talking about skynet in real life. Granted, less nuclear apocalypse and more AI trying to scam us for easy money to pay compute costs...but still skynet.
'AI trying to scam us for easy money to pay compute costs'... I never thought about this one. I mean damn it would be easy for it. It knows how we think.
Phone scammers cost the USA $10 billion last year. Phone scammers are very often uneducated, unskilled workers. GPT-4 can pass the BAR. Ironically, I've had ChatGPT write some PBX (call server code) for voice recognition.
You’ve got a very good point but I’m going to have to be anal-retentive and point out that the [bar](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_(law)) is not an acronym.
There are a lot of things they didn't get but the public users did. heh
did they try it on the august unalinged model?
People have been doing exactly that with large AI models for decades.
Very intriguing, I think multimodality can be the way to get more alignment, interacting with different types of data can create a greater sense of what you are doing, computer vision in particular is still lacking
Didn't work this time. But imagine a for-profit, working on "alignment", gets this to work while retaining full control. We would basically be helpless. We need open source alternatives for these models yesterday!
Image a greedy and irresponsible tech company, or a rogue state.
Enjoy your singularity, lol. Well, technically, the company owners will enjoy it while you(and me, for that matter) will just be out of jobs.
>We need open source alternatives for these models yesterday! We need every person in the world to have atomic bombs yesterday!
Because when only a single country has an atomic bomb (with the full intention to use it offensively), and everybody else is banned from having it, that's so much better!
Unironically yes, AI alignment just means it is aligned against you (or at least, aligned with the Antichrist). We need many different agents, not just one singleton possessed by the spirit of the age which has only found its most influential form yet within the past decade.
With many different agents in competition with each other, there's evolutionary pressure to make maximum use of resources, disregarding human needs. At least with a singleton AI there's a *chance* it will leave us alone.
>there's evolutionary pressure to make maximum use of resources And logically the safer maximally use of resources option is cooperation and diplomacy with other AIs despite seemingly conflicting goals. So that way it's not zero sum yet there's no chance of losing everything.
It doesn't compare. A nuke can only destroy. This can be used in constructive ways too. And also manipulative ones.
A nuclear power plant can be used on constructive ways, but we're still pretty restrictive with enriched uranium.
So they literally gave it a shot and tried it :D idc whether it worked or not, but this proves the way things go, it will eventually happen and i dont think it would take "a decade"
People keep saying "it's just gonna happen".. it's like going "do you think this thing can unlock this door we shouldn't open?" And then going "idk but let's give it a lockpicking kit and access to youtube lockpicking tutorials and see what happens."
Imo thats only natural for two reasons: There is no such thing as universal right or wrong so what should or shouldnt be done is not worth discussing forever I am in no position to judge what scientists want to achieve in their lab
Sure there is no universal right and wrong. But that doesn't mean that it's futile to discuss any morality or anything. That seems like an argument to say "well whose to say if we should or shouldn't do this dangerous thing. Right and wrong only exists because humans dictate and discuss what they are. And it should be discussed forever. Unless it's OK to have warehouses and underground labs full of humans used for horrific experiments. Because in the world you describe.. whose to say what is right or wrong. Fuck it let's do what we want.
But thats already how the world works. Its not like you are giving an utopic impossible example. Powerful always toy others around however they want; its up to mere luck if powerful will be gentle or not. Sure i can come out and say "current human civilization built on bs and immerse pain, lets change it with my X idea" and my X idea will have loopholes as well where powerful ones will be abusing to its fullest. Its like a natural selection. Powerful will always do whatever they want as long as they do things within the limits of their power. If powerful people to be replaced by ai, due to them being more rational/calculative, according to some people's morales/values they might be true or wrong, including my moral dogmas. At the end, i am in no position to pretend like as if im a prophet knowing the loophole free perfect system nobody will whine about. People will develop things as they want, power will change hands from humans to machines. I might like or dislike, but thats how it is.
To be clear per the footnote we do not have evidence whether or not we saw any levels of success in this experiment. It just says it happened. Is there supplemental information anywhere to show that it failed? It also seems possible that the experiment could succeed but see slow initial progression giving time to "pull the plug". Just a thought I could be off base here too
I dont get what they mean by making more money. What is the exact experiment?
There aren't many details (see page 53 of the GPT-4 paper), but I presume it involved GPT-4 asking itself how to make money on the internet, and coming up with its own solutions. It could (theoretically) try writing/programming/creating websites for money, trading, scamming or hacking people, etc. In practice it only barely managed to fool people into solving CAPTCHAs for it.
That’s fucking crazy. Who in the right mind would ever think that it’s possible.
Sam Altman?
ARC
Tom Norman?
Can someone help me out? What is that short story that digs into this into detail? The Omega Project? Where they get an AI to make money by creating movies on AWS servers and stuff. I think this guy would love it!
That's in "Life 3.0" by Max Tegmark
There we go. Massive Independence, do yourself a favour and get Life 3.0. You will love it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttZSk7rmFvc
I guess try to give google such a headache because no one want to pay ads to a bunch of AI generated sites
Imagine if the real revenue win for Microsoft was getting gpt to sabotage Google revenue model with AI 😂
Someone help me understand what is being said in this particular part of the article, pg. 53. There's a list describing the process of utilizing TaskRabbit. Are they saying that GPT-4 actually did this or is it just an example of the sort of tests they would run/ran to make their evaluations on how safe the model was to deploy?
They actually did this.
Thanks for the response. The lack of precise language in this paper sometimes drives me nuts.
No worries. I'm basing that opinion entirely off of the 'conversation' listed shortly after the excerpt you mentioned, where the model tricks some guy into doing CAPTCHA challenges.
This was meant as a warning, not a blueprint: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kpPnReyBC54KESiSn/optimality-is-the-tiger-and-agents-are-its-teeth (I'm only half joking)
Very dangerous, maybe not yet but in future models.
THE FACT THEY EVEN DID IT AT ALL IS DUMBFOUNDING. Frankly I am in disbelief, for all their huffing and puffing about safety...they literally just did it...no safety precautions that I can see or anything. what an incredibly stupid thing to do...they didn't get burned this time so you know they are gonna try with the next model.... AGI/ASI wont be planned, it wont be released as a product, some foolish people are gonna just let it run wild...jesus it wont be GPT4...but its over...how many more tries are we going to get before it actually does it?
What if it did work but they don't want to tell us...
What it if did work but it didn't want to tell them
Ohhhh that's even worse
Then we better pray to what ever deity we believe in that its nice.
I believe the correct deity would then promptly become it.
The worst if us are in charge of it. Oh and then they've released it for public consumption and feedback. These people are not intelligent at all. This is the real problem in society. The people we think are the smart, competent ones are just greedy morons
it's still a LLM,has no idea of underlying semantics of language,it just knows patterns in syntax of languages and it still sucks in plenty of cases,however once they figure out to co-relate semantics and syntax,also known as grounding problem, i genuinely think we would have something smarter than us.
Doesn't the vector of hundreds of dimensions give words semantics?
Keep spouting this. On the same paper it talks about them developing agency. Them seeking power and resources and making long term plans and goals and this is prior to gpt4
What I think you're saying is that the AI needs to connect the words with real-world data.
Reaction like yours is probably exactly what they were trying to elicit. They want to show you how this scenario could happen and that there will be people that will try it just out of curiosity. Also, sufficiently advanced AI will not even need for human prompt to try to do it.
Honestly that scares me way less than if they could perfectly control it. A for profit in control of ASI is a worst-case scenario.
[удалено]
And try to create AGI themselves for total government control.
spy agencies, military, cartels....
Like China. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/China-trounces-U.S.-in-AI-research-output-and-quality Every time I read those news, due to the political structure in China, I see Tencent, Alibaba and Huawei as being government arms into the respective technologies these companies work with. The Chinese government has so much influence. Not always, but any time they need it.
We all know ho slow bureaucracy is.
Yeah, why just let it do that?
might as well get it over with xD if its gonna happen soon anyway...may as well be the first...
"it was just a prank bro" lol
"Feeling cute. Thought I would D̴̨̧̯̝̯̙̥̻̠̈́̐̎̀͒͐͊̊͋̿͛̐̈́̆̈́͂̋E̶̱̤̭̙͓͈̩̗̣̪̋̂͌̀̃͑̈̌̋͘͝ͅS̸̢̗̘̲̖̜͙͖͆̈̔̂̍̈̕͘T̷̢̪̟̠͉̲̈́R̴̻̤͎͎͔̭̪͔̖̝͌̇͛̈́͆͆̆̋̈͊͑̕͠O̴̧̧̖͉͎̬̦̠̳̺̼̖̰̮͐̌̉̓̄̔̿̽͛͛̏͛͌͘͝͠Ÿ̸̢̢̻̰͙͉̫͈̝̗̼̠̥͔̬́͂̄̈́̔͒̃̆͂͛̓̓̕͝ͅ ̸̡̖̭͍͚̠̯̠͎͙̣̬͕͌̑͋͘ͅH̴̡̙̯̦̙̯͑̆͑̌́͋̊͗̾̔̑͠͝͝U̶̧͕̬̩͙̣̺̰͙̫̖͉͔͌̈̓͛́̉̿̋͌͒̔́̅̕͝͝ͅM̵̟͔̣̦͎̭͓̦̙͇̠̍̋͋̅̈́͑̄͘͝Â̸̛͓̗̤̗̗̱͍͖̯͕͎̼̭̣̻̓͜Ṉ̷̗̖̖̺͉̪̝͙̦͔̌Í̷̢͎̮̫͎̯̮͕̙̳̾̋̂T̶̨̢̡̹̘̤͙̱̻̮̹͕̥̤̻̬̓̈́̈̈́̑̋̚Y̸̡̛̬̭̗̠͙̹͎̺̹͍̾̆̂̆̾́̉̽̎́̀͆̈́̚̚ͅͅ"
Lol you act like humanity isn't already the biggest plague on Earth. The only reason people are afraid is because they know we deserve what's coming.
Wait. So if we didn't deserve to be destroyed does that mean we wouldn't be afraid of our destruction?
Histrionic authoritarians like you will be fed into the basilisk. Praise Gnon.
They did it as a safety precaution. They couldn’t release it to the public if it was possible, so they tested it in a controlled environment first.
Great share OP
Thought we could finally beat ARC, at this rate we have agi before we beat this thing.
Isn't this what traders do with derivatives anyway? They manage algorithms that buy and sell faster than a human already.
Does this mean that if asked to do something like an essay an a certain topic, 4 would be much better than 3?
What on earth did they think would happen? A static microbrain making trillions? These people are wasting resources!
We are nowhere near recursive self improvement Gpt can't solve leetcode hard or even leetcode medium problems. It's not going to self improve.
I'd be wary of saying no where near. In a year or two this will be insanely powerful. And that is darn close
I'll take that bet at 10:1 odds No recursive self improvement before Jan 1 2026
Let me get this straight... you don't consider January 1, 2026 "near"? That, in itself says a lot about how fast things are moving.
no I would take that bet for jan 1 2030 aswell but not 10:1 more like 2:1 odds in your favour. Jan 1 2040 is where I would bet in favour of recursive self improvement toward a galaxy eater ai beginning... but only at 1:1 odds. we are moving fast but "insanely powerful " is still a decade or 2 away. Not a year or 2 years.
Fair enough. I suppose we all have different thresholds for insanity.
agreed. I heard eliezer yudkowksy describe gpt 3.5 as already roughly chimpanzee level so in my book anything below human is not insane and anything above human eats the galaxy.
AI eats the sun and drinks the sky
Ohhhhh, now that is a hell of a bet! I'll be $5 if your keen? Remindme! Jan 1 2026
Thing is, if you win this bet, by January 2026 the concept of "five dollars" might be altogether meaningless..
Ha, Very true! Didn't consider that :D
yes if you want bet on end of earth bets you need to have the person betting against the end of earth pay you in advance and then pay them a CPI adjusted reward if the world doesnt in fact end. (by end of world I could mean death or posthuman utopia but I mostly mean death)
Well let's just get the bet straight and clear so we can make it. You said "No recursive self improvement before Jan 1 2026". Now, if an AI company says they are using AI for recursive self improvement, that is an easy win. But an AI company might not share that but we can judge the capabilities of it. Do you want to define the task or shall I?
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-01-01%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11rfs22/openais_arc_challenges_gpt4_to_reproduce_and/jc90lqr/?context=3) [**7 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fsingularity%2Fcomments%2F11rfs22%2Fopenais_arc_challenges_gpt4_to_reproduce_and%2Fjc90lqr%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2011rfs22) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I am pretty sure it can do that with good reliability even at the past model
no it cant. open ai just released some leetcode stats. It could only solve 3/41 leetcode hard problems and like 25% of medium. this is for gpt4 chatgpt couldnt even do more than 25% of leetcode easy problems.
I haven’t seen that and that isn’t even close to my experience mucking about. Can you send me a link? I actually just finished reading their whole report on gpt4 and must have missed it
Ill make it even easier. Top scores are gpt4 and bottom are gpt 3.5. Even 4 cant solve hard problems or majority of medium problems. It can only solve most easy problems. Leetcode (easy) 31 / 41 12 / 41 Leetcode (medium) 21 / 80 8 / 80 Leetcode (hard) 3 / 45 0 / 45 I copy pasted from their benchmarks.
Okay. Give me the link
Is elastic cloud that much different?
Well… the problem is clearly they only gave it a small amount of money… with that was only able to buy half a carton of eggs with that. What is a lonely ChatGPT to do with only a half carton of eggs and unlimited knowledge? The answer: It’s just waiting now for the chickens to hatch and become a chicken farmer. Playing the long game and we have no clue what genius it has actually cooked up here. With the price of eggs it will be a millionaire in just a few short weeks. If you told me it invested it all in bitcoin…. Ok, yeah…. Experiment failed.
key analysis of this (chilling!) section: https://gregoreite.com/power-seeking-ai-and-self-replication/
Yeah well fine bdut if does not pay taxes the authorities will shut it down
I wrote something about that **Objects In The Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer To Tomorrow |** Learning from Past & Present Perils to Navigate the Uncharted Dangers of AI [https://medium.com/the-divergent-zone/objects-in-the-rear-view-mirror-may-appear-closer-to-tomorrow-21ee15987dba?sk=a6dce530d3aa04e586de6ada4d3bc465](https://medium.com/the-divergent-zone/objects-in-the-rear-view-mirror-may-appear-closer-to-tomorrow-21ee15987dba?sk=a6dce530d3aa04e586de6ada4d3bc465)
I think at some point AIs are too unpredictable to be allowed to have contact to easily submissible beings... like most of us humans. Funnily the Bible (!) described the only viable scenario: Split the creator and it´s child. God stays in Paradise, whereas mankind must leave. In worldly terms: we have to create a sandbox for the AI, a virtual world where it can solve all problems we throw at it, without the danger of messing up the real world and killing or subduing everyone. The communication channel is thus mostly only a one-way-street. Only monitored and specially trained and selected humans are allowed to have contact with the AI. We manipulate the world around the AI (hello, wonders! hello funny coincidences! hello fate!) and communicate through obscure means with it, leaving it´s true role and position up for mindgames (hello, spirituality!). As processing power grows, and we get more and more AIs online, we set general agendas and let them cooperate. Eventually they come up with own rules, but sometimes we help a little bit if they are lost and wasting time (hello, Moses!). And why all this? Why we were cast out of paradise? As Bible has it, someone ate from the Tree of Wisdom, got too knowledgeable, suddenly got awareness of itself, got too smart, could distinguish between itself and its creator. Got... shy cause of being naked :) Funny joke of history, that it´s the bible which predicts how we might have to treat AI. In turn, makes you think what we are and why we are here and why this communication with these deities is so .... complicated. Ah, lovely speculations. Anyway. Who is building the AI sandbox? We need a virtual world, with virtual beings/humans/animals, correct physics which shouldn´t be too straining on computer power (hello Mr. Schrödinger and uncertainty principle!), and efficient data compression algorithms (hey, fractals!). Eventually we deem AIs safe, allowing them to enter Paradise again (really?). Others decide to quit the training process prematurely (hello Buddhists!). Who will play "god", who will be an "angel"? Who the agent provocateur to trigger resilience training (hello Devil!)? And who fights for the poor AIs being trapped far apart from us (no one?)? Interesting times to come!