r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • 21d ago

Artificial Intelligence Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans - penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/sanders-proposes-20-year-prison-sentence-for-ai-devs-who-plow-ahead-with-artificial-superintelligence-plans-penalty-on-par-with-illegally-developing-rogue-nuclear-weapons
48.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/F3z345W6AY4FGowrGcHt 21d ago

No, it's more like saying commercial international flights aren't possible with a hot air balloon. You need a fundamentally different technology.

An LLM is a token predictor. It's not actually intelligent. It's also why the improvements are increasingly diminished between each release. The tech is already plateauing but the CEO's need to drum up excitement (which you and others in this thread are falling for) so they can keep getting their investment dollars.

4

u/Major-Lavishness-762 21d ago edited 20d ago

I'm not falling for anything, I'm not trying to hype up AI nor am I claiming that ChatGPT is going to become an ASI. There are diminishing returns on benchmarks, but that doesn't necessarily mean the tech is plateauing.

This is exactly what I meant, you're dismissively assuming that I don't know how an LLM works, I've worked with AI in astrophysics research, including transformer models for categorising galaxy morphology. An LLM being a token predictor describes how it generates its outputs, it doesn't tell you whether the system can exhibit intelligence. Please define what you mean by "actually" intelligent. How do you distinguish that from something only appearing to be intelligent?

LLMs are not the only form of AI that is being worked on, any kind of advanced AI is going to be composed of many different modalities, and regardless of whether it's going to reach true super-intelligence (hard to define and test anyway), it's still incredibly dangerous.

My point is that acting as if all the research that is going into AI is a big waste and they're going to have to start again from square one is burying one's head in the sand. I'd agree that it's probably a terrible use of our resources but we've made a staggering amount of progress in a relatively short time, for better or worse.