http://web.archive.org/web/20240904174555/https://ssi.inc/
I have nothing witty or insightful to say, but figured this probably deserved a post. I flipped a coin between sneerclub and techtakes.
They aren’t interested in anything besides “superintelligence” which strikes me as an optimistic business strategy. If you are “cracked” you can join them:
We are assembling a lean, cracked team of the world’s best engineers and researchers dedicated to focusing on SSI and nothing else.
Eliezer is skeptical, can find flaw in any alignment strategy in 2 minutes: https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1803676608320192617
If you have an alignment plan I can’t shoot down in 120 seconds, let’s hear it. So far you have not said anything different from the previous packs of disaster monkeys who all said exactly this almost verbatim, but I’m open to hearing better.
is… is yud one of the disaster monkeys? or are we supposed to forget he spent a bunch of years running and renaming an institute that tried and failed to do this exact same alignment grift?
Lol. The obvious pump and dump scheme is working as intended.
ah yeah, 10 employees and “worth” $5 billion, utterly normal bubble shit
Sutskever was an early advocate of scaling, a hypothesis that AI models would improve in performance given vast amounts of computing power. The idea and its execution kicked off a wave of AI investment in chips, data centers and energy, laying the groundwork for generative AI advances like ChatGPT.
but don’t sweat it, the $1 billion they raised is going straight to doing shit that doesn’t fucking work but does fuck up the environment, trying to squeeze more marginal performance gains out of systems that plateaued when they sucked up all the data on the internet (and throwing money at these things not working isn’t even surprising, given a tiny amount of CS knowledge)
I don’t get it. If scaling is all you need, what does a “cracked team” of 5 mean in the end? Nothing?
What’s, the different between super intelligence being scaling, and super intelligence, being whatever happens? Can someone explain to me the difference between what is and what SUPER is? When someone gives me the definition of super intelligence as “the power to make anything happen,” I always beg, again, “and how is that different precisely from not, that?”
The whole project is tautological.
Superintelligence is an AI meaningfully beyond human capability.
It pretty obviously can’t be achieved by brute forcing something already way past diminishing returns, though.
I’m actually, not convinced that AI meaningfully beyond human capability actually makes any sense, either. The most likely thing is that after stopping the imitation game, an AI developed further would just… have different goals than us. Heck, it might not even look intelligent at all to half of human observers.
For instance, does the Sun count as a super intelligence? It has far more capability than any human, or humanity as a whole, on the current time scale.
It’s called “safe superintelligence” because they want investors to sign SAFE agreements and feel very smart about it.
you know a company is very serious when it uses game balance terminology to describe its HR practices. “I’m sorry, we’re going to have to nerf your salary”
“Your wages feel overtuned.”
“We’re thinking of reworking your position.”
“This company is in beta. Your position is not fixed and might not be in the final product.”
Tangent: As a first time participant in an early access game, I came across the term “overtuned” which made me irrationally angry. My understanding is that it is supposed to mean “you buffed this because of feedback but maybe a little too much” but I have rarely seen it used to mean other than “this needs a nerf, and I won’t justify my position, but I want to sound like I’m reasonable”
Tangent: As a first time participant in an early access game, I came across the term “overtuned” which made me irrationally angry. My understanding is that it is supposed to mean “you buffed this because of feedback but maybe a little too much” but I have rarely seen it used to mean other than “this needs a nerf, and I won’t justify my position, but I want to sound like I’m reasonable”
never, ever, ever play EVE. you might pop a vein in apoplexy
(CCP demonstrates some of the most stunning lack of systemic thinking and basic hypothesis testing on the very damn thing they control, and it frequently does my head in)
“you buffed this because of feedback but maybe a little too much” but I have rarely seen it used to mean other than “this needs a nerf, and I won’t justify my position, but I want to sound like I’m reasonable”
please never let me make the mistake of becoming a game developer; I absolutely would be the guy who closes this ticket with “fuck off gamer” and gets us review bombed by the worst parts of our playerbase