How exactly is this going to be enforced? What exactly is the mechanism that gets capitalist organizations to stop? Good luck!

Much better to focus on AI liability laws.

Yann LeCun and Thomas Dietterich at least.

The GPUs aren’t actually connected together physically. The transformer architecture is entirely in software. The software uses GPUs to do matrix calculations efficiently.

Specifically, the transformer architecture is a bunch of large matrices connected together with arithmetic operations. The training process shows it a sequence of words and sees if it correctly predicts the next word. It figures out how “wrong” the prediction is and updates the matrices so that the prediction will be slightly more right next time. This is a very high level description of “back propagation”.

Using text to automatically train the network is called self-supervised learning. It’s great because no human input is required, just lots of text.

There are many other forms of training. ChatGPT works because it was also trained using human reinforcement feedback learning (HRFL), where humans rank a set of answers. Basically the same underlying process as above, but the answers generated by the network are used to train the network, and the ranking is used to prefer the better answers. Probably when we’re giving up and down votes, OpenAI is using that for HRFL.

Another approach is to use humans to create examples. OpenAI hired people in Africa to have conversations where one played the role of the chatbot. This kind of training helped the network understand chat style interactions.

Since it’s a next word predictor, the chat data has special tokens in the text which represent “user” and “chatbot” roles. So maybe that helps you imagine it better as a very fancy autocomplete.

Gary is a complete pill in real life too.

No, my man, you're just rude.

Dost sayeth the gentleman who betold me that mine own life is less valuable than AI.

LOL.

IP? Huh what?

> You need not worry for the life of AGIs for theirs are already much more valuable than your own

Are you an AI? Because your reply reads like a word association salad.

> but have you even an order-of-magnitude idea of just how long it would take for humans to simulate an AGI?

I do. That's part of the point I'm making. Either Strong AI cares about computation time - in which case it needs to explain why it matters - or it doesn't in which case many, many processes could qualify as conscious.

Also - who is to say what a particular set of events means? For example, if you had a computer which reversed the polarity of TTL logic, would the consciousness be the same? Why? What if an input could be interpreted in two completely different ways by doing tricks like this. Are there two consciousnesses for each interpretation? Does consciousness result from observer interpretations? The whole thing is just shot through with stupid situations.

> yet those rituals resulted in (very slow!) intelligent predictions…

I can't see how to finish this sentence in a way that doesn't make Strong AI look completely ridiculous.

If AIs are not having subjective experiences, there is no ethical duty towards them as individuals. Turing completeness means that digital computers are equivalent, so anything a digital AI does could be replicated by pen, paper and a human solving each part of an AI computation by hand. So if AIs are conscious, so too would be a group of humans who decided to divide up the work of performing an AI computation together. Therefore, under thestrong AI hypothesis, if those those people choose to stop doing the computation would we be compelled to consider that “murder” of the AI? This is just one of many many examples that demonstrate how wrong Strong AI is (and how wrong Bostrum is about just about everything, including Simulaton theory).