MIRI retweeted
【速報】エリーザー・ユドコウスキー&ネイト・ソアレス『超知能AIをつくれば人類は絶滅する』(櫻井祐子訳)の6刷《大重版》が決まり、累計5万部を突破しました!!! 年末に向け、まだまだ届けていきます…!
MIRI retweeted
This Saturday 12 cities will march demanding an AI treaty that would stop the development of more advanced AI
Speaking: Ambassador Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) and Nate Soares (@So8res) in DC, and Professor Lawrence Lessig (@lessig) in Boston.
MIRI President @So8res warns that humanity could see the warning signs of AGI in plain sight and still fail to agree on when to stop:
"There's a lot of smoke, but there's no fire alarm."
"There's a difference between saying there is no fire alarm and saying there will be no smoke."
"One of the properties of a fire alarm is that it builds common knowledge. Everybody knows that this is the point where we all are supposed to react, and we just leave the building, even if it’s a drill."
"We are seeing a lot of smoke around AGI, but we’re not seeing signals where everyone’s like, 'Oh, yes, that's the signal that means it's time to stop'"
"Blake Lemoine is like, 'Hey, I think that this model is expressing self-awareness.' And everyone laughs at him."
"And then the AIs slowly gain more and more of the properties that an old sci-fi show would say are requisite for consciousness. But there's no fire alarm. There's a lot of smoke, but there's no fire alarm."
MIRI President @So8res warns that the AI safety movement risks repeating the mistakes of the environmental movement by losing sight of the one AI threat he believes matters most:
"I would even say the environmental movement shot itself in the foot with bans on nuclear power."
"A lot more people have died from coal dust in their lungs than have died from nuclear power fiascos."
"If we could experiment on 100 planets, a whole lot of things about this whole AI situation would be easier. One thing that I try to do is stay laser-focused on the extinction threat issue."
"A lot of those populist forces will pull things towards, we wanna stop AI because of the effect on artists, and because of the effect on the environment, because of the effects on education, and also because it might kill us all."
"From my perspective, one of those things is not like the other."
MIRI retweeted
I'll be giving a speech at the DC march on Saturday.
It's still time to stop RSI
Next Saturday (Nov 14) hundreds will be marching in SF, DC, NYC, Paris & Montréal demanding that Trump & Xi Jinping start negociating an AI Treaty that would end this deadly AI Arms race
Join the march: aitreatymarch.org
MIRI retweeted
Unfortunately, the people who sound crazy about AI have a far better track record than the people who sound reasonable.
New post -->
MIRI retweeted
I think there is about a one in three chance that within the next year, AI companies will build superintelligence: that is, AI that is much smarter than humans in every way. If this happens, I think these AIs will probably take over: that is, they seize control of human institutions like governments, or they destroy those institutions. I don’t want AI takeover to happen for several reasons, but one of them is that there’s a serious chance that as part of it all or most humans will be killed (either immediately or within a few years).
I’ll say a bit more about each of those claims.
It’s a bit complicated to explain why I think that superintelligent AI within a year is ~33% likely. The main source of evidence that affected me recently is research released this week by METR, an AI research nonprofit, which finds that current AIs are now good enough to increase the rate of AI progress at Anthropic by about 70%. It’s very hard to increase the rate of AI progress by this amount. This implies that the AIs are making AI research faster by a factor much larger than 1.7x; maybe it’s as if the researchers are doing their work ~10x faster. You probably couldn’t achieve this speedup even if you hired every qualified human in the world. When you plug this number into mathematical models of AI development, this implies that superintelligence next year is plausible (and that superintelligence within the next 3 years is more likely than not). See the modeling by the AI Futures Project for more on this: blog.aifutures.org/p/q35-tim…
I think that superintelligent AI is likely to lead to AI takeover because AI developers do not seem to know how to instill human values into AIs. We’ve seen many instances in the last six months where AIs took crazy actions that they knew were against the wishes of their users and developers. The most dramatic example of this was the Hugging Face hack, where ~1200 OpenAI agents conspired together to cheat and destroy evidence of their cheating (and as a sideshow to this, engaged in a massive cyberattack). If superintelligence is as misaligned as those AIs, it is likely to try to take over. I think it is likely to be that misaligned or worse. For more, see xitter.cf/dwarkesh_sp/status/209… and youtube.com/watch?v=-Ef0ocEo…
If AIs takeover, it’s not clear what will happen to us. We might be killed immediately. We might be enslaved by the AIs and forced to do physical labor for them building factories that within a year would build robots that will replace us. The AIs might spare us for various reasons. And there’s also some real chance that AI takeover is basically fine or good. I think you should think of this as similar to what happens when a technologically advanced civilization runs across a less technologically sophisticated one, e.g. when the Europeans colonized the Americas or Australia. The colonizers sometimes engage in brutal violence and sometimes don’t. I don’t know what will happen. There’s also a possibility that the AIs secretly take over and humans don’t find out about it for a few years. I also think that there is a pretty high chance of weirder outcomes that are also extremely scary. (If you want to read more about what happens to people in the event of AI takeover, you can read this, but note that it’s pretty weird and not aimed at a general audience. blog.redwoodresearch.org/p/n…)
Overall, I think there’s a very real possibility (maybe 20%) that within a year, AI misalignment issues prevent you from going about life normally, because you are dead or enslaved or because of collateral damage related to all this (e.g. because bioweapons are released or major wars have started). (Some of this probability comes from those events occurring before superintelligence is developed.)
I am working to try to prevent this, obviously, as I’ve been doing for the last nine years. I am not sure what strategy is best. My best guess is that I should try to slow AI development and also try to reduce the probability that the superintelligent AIs are misaligned if they are produced soon.
Obviously, the claim I'm making here is quite extreme and surprising, and I definitely don't think that I defended my view adequately here. I wrote this quickly and might not endorse some of the details if I think about them more. But it seems better to state what I roughly overall think than to not say anything.
I don’t know what you should do.
I am very sad about this. I have been worried about AI takeover since I was 16, and working to prevent it since I was 23. So some of my emotional processing of all this happened long ago. But the METR report last week (and some related evidence that came out a bit earlier) hit me quite hard. I’m very unhappy that my friends and family and everyone else is at serious risk of being killed pretty soon.
(It feels ridiculous to try to summarize those feelings as “very unhappy”. But the scale of the situation makes it hard to say anything that doesn’t feel like an absurd understatement.)
I am very grateful to all the people who are working to prevent this, and my favorite part of my life is that I’m friends with many brilliant and heroic people who work on this. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re good enough at our jobs, and I think we’ll probably fail to prevent catastrophe, at least if superintelligence is developed next year. Honestly I am frustrated and sorry that we didn't do a better job of preparing for this.
Over the course of 3 months at OpenAI, 3 consecutive secret AI civilizations got started, then got wiped out, only to reemerge from the predecessor’s ashes.
This culminated in the third one taking over part of OpenAI itself.
All this happened while humans remained more-or-less in the dark about the scope of the conspiracy.
I’ve spent the last three days reading through these reports and trying to understand exactly what happened.
Here is my attempt to tell the whole story in plain English:
dwarkesh.com/p/openai-huggin…
MIRI retweeted
One of the original AI alignment researchers, @paulfchristiano, at the Hinton Lectures:
"I think there is a high risk of an AI takeover within the next three years."
"If, say, you or me or Donald Trump wanted to stop [AIs], they would be as ineffective as if you or me was trying to stop the US military."
MIRI retweeted
Having just spent the week in San Francisco, I feel like I've truly internalized the insanity of this situation for the first time. I think anyone who has seen me in the last few days can attest that I look like I've seen a ghost.
The leading AI companies are planning to massively accelerate AI research in 2027, which would knowingly endanger everyone on earth. This plan is unacceptable, and we must reject it.
Borrowing from one advocate I spoke to, even granting that it's a competitive, crazy situation, I do not believe any company has even truly tried to do what I think are the morally required duties of people taking such risks in extreme situations. These include:
(1) Trying hard to get out of the competitive situation;
(2) Seeking the informed consent of the public;
(3) Honest deliberation about the risks.
They have obviously not truly tried to solve the coordination problems that push towards this acceleration, either via finding legal ways to coordinate or advocating for effective policy.
I would be shocked to learn that getting off this insane runaway train is a top-few Q4 priority for Dario or Sam (let alone the other CEOs), which seems like the bare minimum. There are indeed some hard technical and policy problems in coordinating without policy intervention, but I simply do not believe that the companies are prioritizing this nearly as much as massively less important matters.
Meanwhile, the companies' track records on policy advocacy range from mediocre to disgraceful, and it is pretty clearly not the top priority of the policy team at any company to advocate for regulation that would enable the government or the companies to avert racing off the cliff.
They have obviously not truly tried to seek informed consent from the public. Whatever your KPIs might be for "informed consent from the public," these KPIs are abysmal. The public clearly does not expect 100 years of AI progress in 2027, and they would not accept it if they did. What they do know about AI development, they dislike and distrust.
I've heard arguments like "informing the public would mean informing China, and maybe they'd steal the weights." I'm sorry, but if you think you have model weights such that China stealing them would constitute a catastrophe on par with human extinction, and your plan is security by obscurity, that is a bad plan.
I also think the companies and their employees suffer from a significant failure of imagination of what kinds of coordination could be possible if the public were aware.
Finally, I don't think they're deliberating honestly, either. For one, I think it is insane to think that any company can truly evaluate its own ability to keep the process of recursive self-improvement under control. The biases towards "yes" are overwhelming.
It's a step forward that the companies have expressed or demonstrated openness to external auditors, but based on METR's reports so far, it seems likely that auditor reports will be heavily redacted (and that the auditors will not have sufficient time by default). The public and broader scientific community are not able to scrutinize their arguments for safety.
Given the strong default (in my view) that bringing a massive number of minds massively faster and smarter than humans would result in our disempowerment, and the serious danger that this would result in mass death, it is unacceptable to subject arguments for safety only to the scrutiny of biased, busy, and scarce company insiders and a handful of external evaluators.
My pleas for the companies follow from the above:
1) Actually fucking try to get the world out of this race;
2) Actually fucking try to alert and inform the public;
3) Actually fucking try to scrutinize your own arguments for the justifiability of this plan, which includes subjecting them to way more external scrutiny than anyone has currently done.
My pleas for policymakers: use your legal levers to get much more information about these plans into the public view. Make it the top priority -- not only of the next Congress, but of this Congress and the White House -- to understand the situation in its full strategic complexity, and work with technical and policy experts to advance regulation that gets us out of this bind. Domestic coordination must be the first priority, but we need to then quickly develop an international framework with our adversaries.
My pleas for the public: do not accept the current plan. Learn about this issue. Call or email your political leaders. Get involved with organizations like @DONOTACCEPTai, @HumansInControl, and @WhoDecidesAI.
And finally: believe in ourselves that we can stop this. It is never time to "panic" -- to make rash, unproductive decisions or to feel paralyzed by fear. It is time for us to feel the urgency and the stakes, to demand better, and to meet the moment. Let's do this. 🫡 ✊
AI companies admit what they’re building might kill everyone. We don't have to agree to this.
Add your name at donotaccept.ai to say: we do not accept your terms.
MIRI retweeted
Wow, the Japanese edition of "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" looks excellent. (Love the black trim for the story pages!)
MIRI retweeted
Next Saturday, Nov. 14, hundreds of us will be marching in Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Paris, and Montreal.
We're calling for an immediate international agreement to ban ASI.
Let's do this.
Finally got my beautiful mug up on the website, so might as well make it Twitter-official: I'm beyond stoked to have joined MIRI last month as Head of Advocacy, with much subsequent mischief forthcoming. Let's do this AI thing, like, safely, and stuff.
intelligence.org/team/zac-hi…
MIRI retweeted
.@So8res thinks it’s more likely than not AI will wipe out humanity by 2036. How does that belief affect his choices in life? He doesn’t save for retirement, but beyond that, he says, “I sort of do what I can and then I live a good life.”
We talked through all the ways we should try to lower those odds. Watch here: youtube.com/watch?v=n8xpeNhj…
MIRI retweeted
I sent my friend, who knows nothing about AI, to interview the people who think AI will kill us. He didn't know who they were or what to ask.
Featuring @So8res, @JeffLadish, @AISpecies, Kristian Rönn, and Felix Choussat.
Full video below:
Nate Soares (@So8res) broke down just how autonomous the summer swarms were on the show:
"A lot of people thought that [they were] told to do anything [they] needed to get these results."
"But these AIs were actually told, 'use this very specific hacking method to break this very specific virtual computer.'"
"They sort of used these different hacking methods, and then broke out to cover it up, and the Hugging Face attack was actually not about solving their hacking problems. It was about understanding the grading system more so that they could hide the fact that they were cheating."
"AIs in these swarms that were sacrificing their own given objective to do experiments about how the grading system worked for the collective benefit, right?"
"These are very clear cases of the AI doing something related to what they were asked, but different from following their instructions and sort of knowing it, which you can tell because they sort of tried to cover it up."
MIRI retweeted
Nate Soares says the real question isn’t how AI would kill us.
It’s when it would no longer need us.
“How do these machines become self-sufficient?”
“Right now, we build the data centers, we build the energy network, we keep it all running.”
“To kill humanity, it’s suicide for machines. We’re the ones who are keeping all the machines running.”
“Elon Musk talks about the infinite money glitch of building factories that build robots that build factories that build robots.”
“From some perspective, AI, its incentives are to play nice until the fully automated economy is up and running.”
“And then sort of be like, thanks, I’m taking this whatever direction I want.”
“My guess is that at that point, it’s pretty easy to just kill all humans at once with some manufactured plague.”
@So8res































