Okay, so that AI letter signed by lots of AI researchers calling for a "Pause [on] Giant AI Experiments"? It's just dripping with AI hype. Here's a quick rundown.
First, for context, note that URL? The Future of Life Institute is a longtermist operation. You know, the people who are focused on maximizing the happiness of billions of future beings who live in computer simulations.
https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
>>
For some context, see: https://aeon.co/essays/why-longtermism-is-the-worlds-most-dangerous-secular-credo
So that already tells you something about where this is coming from. This is gonna be a hot mess.
>>
There a few things in the letter that I do agree with, I'll try to pull them out of the dreck as I go along.
So, into the #AIhype. It starts with "AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research[1]".
>>
Footnote 1 there points to a lot of papers, starting with Stochastic Parrots. But we are not talking about hypothetical "AI systems with human-competitive intelligence" in that paper. We're talking about large language models.
https://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/stochasticparrots/
And the rest of that paragraph. Yes, AI labs are locked in an out-of-control race, but no one has developed a "digital mind" and they aren't in the process of doing that.
>>
And could the creators "reliably control" #ChatGPT et al. Yes, they could --- by simply not setting them up as easily accessible sources of non-information poisoning our information ecosystem.
And could folks "understand" these systems? There are plenty of open questions about how deep neural nets map inputs to outputs, but we'd be much better positioned to study them if the AI labs provided transparency about training data, model architecture, and training regimes.
>>
Next paragraph. Human-competitive at general tasks, eh? What does footnote 3 reference? The speculative fiction novella known as the "Sparks paper" and OpenAI's non-technical ad copy for GPT4. ROFLMAO.
>>
On the "sparks" paper:
https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1638891855718002691?s=20
On the GPT-4 ad copy:
https://twitter.com/emilymbender/status/1635697381244272640?s=20
On "general" tasks:
https://datasets-benchmarks-proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/hash/084b6fbb10729ed4da8c3d3f5a3ae7c9-Abstract-round2.html
>>
“Remember when you went to Microsoft for stodgy but basically functional software and the bookstore for speculative fiction? arXiv may have been useful in physics and math (and other parts of CS) but it's a cesspool in "AI"—a reservoir for hype infections https://t.co/acxV4wm0vE”
I'm mean, I'm glad that the letter authors & signatories are asking "Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?" but the questions after that are just unhinged #AIhype, helping those building this stuff sell it.
>>
Okay, calling for a pause, something like a truce amongst the AI labs. Maybe the folks who think they're really building AI will consider it framed like this?
>>
Just sayin': We wrote a whole paper in late 2020 (Stochastic Parrots, 2021) pointing out that this head-long rush to ever larger language models without considering risks was a bad thing. But the risks and harms have never been about "too powerful AI".
Instead: They're about concentration of power in the hands of people, about reproducing systems of oppression, about damage to the information ecosystem, and about damage to the natural ecosystem (through profligate use of energy resources).
>>
They then say: "AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal."
Uh, accurate, transparent and interpretable make sense. "Safe", depending on what they imagine is "unsafe". "Aligned" is a codeword for weird AGI fantasies. And "loyal" conjures up autonomous, sentient entities. #AIhype
>>
Yes, we should have regulation that requires provenance and watermarking systems. (And it should ALWAYS be obvious when you've encountered synthetic text, images, voices, etc.)
Yes, there should be liability --- but that liability should clearly rest with people & corporations. "AI-caused harm" already makes it sound like there aren't *people* deciding to deploy these things.
>>
Yes, there should be robust public funding but I'd priortize non-CS fields that look at the impacts of these things over "technical AI safety research".
Also "the dramatic economic and political disruptions that AI will cause". Uh, we don't have AI. We do have corporations and VCs looking to make the most $$ possible with little care for what it does to democracy (and the environment).
>>
Policymakers: Don't waste your time on the fantasies of the techbros saying "Oh noes, we're building something TOO powerful." Listen instead to those who are studying how corporations (and governments) are using technology (and the narratives of "AI") to concentrate and wield power.
Start with the work of brilliant scholars like Ruha Benjamin, Meredith Broussard, Safiya Noble, Timnit Gebru, Sasha Costanza-Chock and journalists like Karen Hao and Billy Perrigo.
Mom: we have Butlerian Jihad at home.
> I'd priortize non-CS fields that look at the impact
Thank you for this important observation. ICYMI, I wrote about this in WIRED this week https://www.wired.com/story/tech-governance-public-health/
@emilymbender This is the central point: we don’t have AI, and it’s not in any way close! I wrote an explainer about this last week.
https://adsei.org/2023/03/12/theres-no-such-thing-as-artificial-intelligence/?amp=1
@emilymbender with a followup about bias: Machines are unbiased, and other bedtime stories.
https://adsei.org/2023/03/27/machines-are-unbiased-and-other-bedtime-stories/?amp=1
@emilymbender
As IBM's training material stated *back in the '70s*:
@emilymbender is watermarking an actual technology or just something we have to figure out? While I can imagine it for Audio and video, I fail (but it's my limitation probably) to imagine it for text. Perhaps long form text can have detectable patterns inside that point to an LLM generating it? But wouldn't that signal be invisible in small snippets?
I like the idea of being able to identify the source of LLM created text.
@signaleleven @emilymbender there are already some schemes for watermarking text. They usually works better for longer texts.
It works by messing with next word probabilities along some pre-determined schema - see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/02/17/business/ai-text-detection.html for more info
Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)
Michael Hartle
Jeff ♨️ Darcy
Loukas (They/Them) 🏳️⚧️
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
Jesse
Chris Lay
Mark Crowley
David Mortensen
Chris Owens
bruno caldas vianna
Krzysztof Krasiński-Sroka
J. Nathan Matias 🦣
PeoriaBummer
TracingVRL by A.J. Fish
Linda McIver
Christopher
Emily S
Trees
Signaleleven
Severák