Comments on “David Chapman, artificial intelligence, and AI risk”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: David Chapman, artificial intelligence, and AI risk
Unsafe At Any FLOPS
I did too :)
“Better without AI” is bland but it has no specific defects. All the other candidate titles had something actually wrong with them.
“Unsafe at any FLOPS” has two things wrong with it. Or maybe three! Many people wouldn’t get the reference; others would find it cheezy; and most people don’t recognize the word FLOPS.
Wrong link?
You wrote:
I concluded that, once again, backprop had fooled researchers into thinking it was doing something it wasn’t. I summarize that analysis in Are language models Scary.
Should that link be to something else? Or do you intend to, eventually, summarize your 2014 analysis on that page?
I think
the only reason I get the Ralph Nader reference is because my grandfather was a car buff who lived through the era. I don’t remember Nader bringing it up too much during his Green Party presidential campaigns, as the Corvair was ancient history by then.
More to the topic at hand, maybe a “Corvan Greenbrier maximizer” wouldn’t be so bad? We’d just have to remember to avoid going around corners very fast.
How backprop fooled vision researchers
Hi, Kenny, I’ve posted that bit, and fixed the link.
To save you going back to the page and following the link, it is to:
https://betterwithout.ai/understanding-AI-systems#AI-surface-features
For what it's worth,
I still liked “Unsafe At Any FLOPs” :-)