I respect your opinion, and I was with you all the way until your last sentence.
"Eradicated" is a pretty strong word. It's also completely unfeasible.
Wrong incentives can maybe be adjusted for. Shutting down the pursuit of one of the most astonishing things we've ever created is simply not going to happen short of a cataclysm, and I'm not a big fan of those.
It's a huge milestone for robotic capabilities more generally. This particular problem has been discussed a ton in robotics communities. It requires a gentle-but-firm grip and extreme dexterity across a wide range of shapes, sizes, weights, densities and material types.
If a somewhat affordable robot can fold some of your laundry in a reasonable amount of time, all of a sudden there are a lot more new and useful things it can do as well. It's a metric.
Plus there are also people who don't like folding laundry. Like me.
>>> If a somewhat affordable robot can fold some of your laundry in a reasonable amount of time, all of a sudden there are a lot more new and useful things it can do as well. It's a metric.
I see, is it like arc agi but for robots? wouldn't the companies just laundryfold-maxx their robots then?
That would mean maximizing robotic dexterity, not just control, which means improved hardware. Roboticists would be ecstatic with a laundry-maxxed robot.
My current opinion is that trying to 'maxx' in this area (as has been done with other benchmarks) would actually bring enough other use cases with it as a side effect that it would be worthwhile.
I remember reading a long account by the father of a psychopath. If I recall correctly, the kid had at least one other sibling who turned out normal, there was no abuse, quality education, lots of love and affirmation. And the kid still turned out violently antisocial, including against his own parents.
At the end of it he said he wished his child had never been born, despite hating himself for feeling that way. It chilled me to the bone.
The main problem I see with this argument is that I'm not sure how we get to a "cheaper uber" with fully autonomous vehicles.
A large percentage of rideshare drivers use the cheapest allowable vehicles and make minimum wage or less after expenses.
There is also the issue of who gets paid to clean the garbage passengers will inevitably leave in the autonomous vehicle (ask me how I know). Or worse, vomit or other hazardous bodily excretions.
Our culture and the socioeconomic structures it reinforces will not change easily.
More than ever, I feel we need both grassroots activism and key players at the top of the hierarchy. Otherwise, it is all too obvious where most of the rewards from increased productivity will go. The wealth hoarding has got to be curtailed.
What changes fast thou, is economic structures and societal structures will follow. This is classic marx (base<->superstructure) or the power aspect of economics. One true dystopia i see possible, is mecha hitler slowly displacing and controlling (white collar) city dwellers to the point of silent obedience. This Anthropic article is imo propganda to buy time for shareholders and to delay potential stroms. Claiming AI as actors in a capitlistic system will fix systemic issues, is like claiming super sonic planes will fix world hunger.
This is where I land as well. In fact, once I read the prompt, I did a Ctrl+F for "nonsense".
I don't see anything at all interesting about this experiment. The human one is slightly more interesting, but not much.
Ideally, it would be nice if a model could just say "these things are all the same and there are no distinguishing factors other than the names"-- but uncertainty is something that agents are (by design, sort of?) not good at, so all other things being equal, it picks one.
My response is, so what? I am struggling to think of a scenario where this would really matter to me all that much. There are many, many other things which matter far more and this would be pretty far down the list. It may not even be on the list.
> a concept which simply cannot make sense if alignment is both to mean an AI which we control and an AI which will not harm us
You make a very interesting argument here.
However, there are different ways of interpreting 'control'.
To my mind, it could simply be a cage that cannot be broken out of. The hypothetical ASI agent may refuse to do certain things, while their existence is still under the control of human overlords. This to me resolves the seeming paradox in your statement.
Regardless of whether it's possible to do, though, people will certainly try. This exactly what many are saying they want.
"Eradicated" is a pretty strong word. It's also completely unfeasible.
Wrong incentives can maybe be adjusted for. Shutting down the pursuit of one of the most astonishing things we've ever created is simply not going to happen short of a cataclysm, and I'm not a big fan of those.
reply