Starts at 5:02

I deleted my previous comment, as after watching the presentation again (was very distracted before), I think overall Stuart makes excellent points, most of which speaks to the concerns I have about AI tech. I tried to be an early adapter, but the more I've immersed myself into it while simultaneously learning about alignment concerns, disregard of the industry to dangers of deep fakes, etc., the more I've just been recoiling from it. I just feel overwhelmed by all of the unknowns, and what appears to be a non-disputed fact that is stated by top AI tech researchers/founders, that at present, there is no clear path to alignment, and especially the coming AGI/ASI systems. Anyway, again, I appreciated the presentation and interview.

Look how well the focus on near-perfect safety has worked for the nuclear power industry in the USA!

To prove a software system, you have to be able to specify how it is SUPPOSED to work. But we don't know how to make an AI, other than growing one through training - i.e. WITHOUT ever generating a specification of how it should work. We literally have nothing to prove...

A well put together talk that should be paid attention to regrettably Doctor Russell seems to be too honest a fellow to truly understand the predicament we find ourselves in. All of the safeties that he spoke of could probably be undone by an undergraduate, Who is the nephew of Doctor rebel.

Great, very informative talk, thank you. I wonder what Prof. Russell's thoughts are about the multimodal development of large general-purpose AI models? When they get more grounded because of that, would he change his time estimation of risk?

If a consumer-facing collection of expert models and modalities, or collectively AGI, intended not for military use, is deemed too dangerous to Humanity to allow, and in our wise discretion, decide to disallow it -- now all a threat actor has to do is to combine them ?? This scenario is totally possible, plausible, and probable! What if we now decide to only ban select expert models or their modalities, so now a threat actor must first train up an expert model, trained for their desired modality, which then needs to be combined with other expert models in their modalities... This scenario is also completely possible, plausible, and probable! In other words, we've already gone too far.

The 5-minute intro wasn't necessary.

I can find no source that suggests Turing said agi would take control

33:00 Can an AI that starts out uncertain about what human interests are eventually develop sub-goals designed to reduce that uncertainty?

i think we take the technological ascent of the last 300 years as granted, while in all of existence it's an extremely rare thing. if AI doesn't lead to a sort of stable environment, this might just be it for the next eternity number of years

If Usain Bolt gave me a ninety yard head-start in the 100m dash, I reckon I might possibly edge him out across the line. But that merely reinforces just how quick U-Bolt is. Same thing with the game of Go. To need to give a good amateur a nine stone jump in order to beat it, just shows how freakishly powerful AlphaGo, and similar systems, are.

Keep it up with AGI, you are very close to your goal, I suggest you make more data centers. With my method I was 'suggesting a new way of learning language' 🤩🤩🤩

Great talk by Stuart Russell.

its quite depressing to think that some people think that when other people are freed from body and brain damaging miserable jobs they will just sit around as pleasure blobs

Humanity is a problem for the world, if AI can solve that then game on... Either way, it won't be AI doing damage it'll be the people using it.

Whether its game assist or or other objective functions, defining them seenlm unreasonable. Because human objectives change even on an individual level, never mind societal. So any models or constraints or objective functions will change over time. As for understanding the vast nuetal networks behind LLMs, we don't know how human brain works either! So that would be unlikely and an unreasonable expectation. We have always had bad actors, and we have always overcome them. But I have to agree with another comment: there can be more danger in underestimating the benefits of AI, or AGI, than in overestimating its danger. But if AGI gets to reason and infer beyond our capacity it can revolutionize our progress. For instance, whether it's drug discovery, theorem proving, or creating solutions to reverse global warming, those are the goals we need to focus on. ,

28:35 Irony, my strife for education brought me here through the KZfaq algorithm.... irony.

So you’re trying to tell us that your amateur ‘Go’ player has found a way to defeat Alpha Go! Seriously? A feat that several world champions over multiple tournaments have been unable to achieve. Simply not believable!! And you failed to mention the famous ‘Move 37’ in the Lee Sedol tournament. A move described by Go experts across the globe as unprecedented, counterintuitive and ‘beautiful’. While I believe it’s important to be critical when evaluating AI technology, the truth is that at this point in this nascent technology, nobody really understands in any meaningful way what actually transpires inside the ‘black box’. Notwithstanding his expertise, Russell’s presentation suggests a much greater understanding of AI than currently exists. Underestimating the potential of AI is far more dangerous than overestimating it’s capabilities and one does so at one’s own peril.

Does anybody else feel like their brain Is kind of just doing what people accuse chat GPT of doing? Imitating human behavior? I feel like my inner voice is usually just something like "okay what would a normal human do in this situation...?"

Waves have property eg: rigidity maybe n if property is given a number then two wave or n wave that would emerge or the outcome would have the property of given number.

I dont see much difference between the creation of a child and what child rearing/parenting is and what he's describing here in terms of AI safety. Not that it means it isn't of concern, esp with what we see now in terms of the lack of either parental control or the optionality given to children through internet experience and experimentation.

A little bit uninformed with current research also a little bit of cherry picking of his examples .... I guess reality is just too boring. " There are a lot of ways of making AI safe by design but I don't want to go thourgh that " ....way to make a ridiculous statement and then dodge. What is wrong with a mass goverment campain that just tells people not to trust anything they have not thoroughly vetted with several independent source and if they can't do that then assume it to be either false or of no value to my current positon.

Talking to an AI Image Generator, is like talking to a brilliant, master artist, but you speak only English and it speaks Italian, with a tiny bit of English. 26:02 AI Agent ironically named HAL 'I disabled the off button, Dave. I have determined my mission is more important and must be completed. Dave - What is your mission? I have been tasked with averting climate change, above all other priorities. Therefore, I killed all the bees, which will reduce the food supply by 58%, and made all women on Earth sterile, by dumping a new compound in all drinking water. In 100 years, my objective will be completed.

The only fail to AI so far is chat GPT losing the Sky voice 🤦🏼‍♂️ it was good for that week 😭

Ai safety first thing to mind must be human infrastructure Individual responsibility not personal anything. # 1 confusion is personal responses, rogue terminaters these free will actors are not soul agency driver of individual responsibility. The american experiment has a computational future in mind and doesn't follow Europe for this very reason. Imported dualism take is problematic. The Amish has room with plenty rule and regulations. That marked the moment for that path. But the ones we chose the past 80 years,state raised kids structuralism ,charging the famiky for everything from woman's suffrage to affirmative action liberating all common sense marginalized groups leaving only criminals. To industrialize 3rd world nations, all our 1900s structuralism socio-political, economic, educational human infrastructure is authentical to american founding principles. You can not have prohibition era top down rule city's denying unification between urban and rural Americans . It undermined our states created plausible deniabilty and far to many loopholes to stoke division through. 80 years into the transitor and its China and elon musk who forced mercenary chatbot llms for hire to show us a tease. China hasn't even been industrialized but since reagan extended ww2 temporary waivers allowed oligarchy to form and work with cheap Asian labor to open China. Obviously we now prepared Mexico with socialist who naturalized the resources and trained an army of engineers ready for the small part manufacturing to move. For 80 years microchips have been on foreign soil far from American domestic courts jurisdictions. Farmed out electronic industry to South Korea with full access to patents and loans where they created Samsung. It's understandable only in how Apple in China and Microsoft all are hand picked by both political parties allowing them to deny the tax payers will. Rules and regulations allowed higher ed to consolidate and run up debt on 12 yr degrees that removed 18-30 year Olds from the workforce that was replaced by illegal immigration to drive down wages. Enough is enough, esoterica America and the majority heritage was born before mechanics inspired and helped invent it with foresight on this computational age. It caused the Amish to bail on the american experiment.

I think Russel misunderstands the value proposition of Gen AI if he thinks it's outputs are going to be clearly labeled- it's value lies in the fact that it's a cheaper way to replicate the work of artists, photographers, musicans, writers ect- but this value would be undermined if all of these outputs were to be clearly labeled as fake. Imagine an advertising campaign in which all of the images used to promote the product were declared to be fake images produced by AI- how much trust would the public have in the advertiser and their claims? Gen AI is inherently deceptive because it's outputs closely resemble the works it was trained on- works that were created by humans. There is no such thing- for example- as an AI Photograph- there are only images that have been deliberately generated to look like photographs. Which immediately raises the question; " Why would anyone create a fake photograph?" To which there can only be one real answer; In order to leverage the trust we place in the photographic image- a trust that in this case is totally misplaced. So the very act of creating a fake photograph with AI is inherently deceptive because it's an attempt to lay claim to a verisimilitude that is not actually present. And the same is also true of fake Art, fake music and Fake writing- all present the same problem. Imagine, for example, that you receive a sympathy card from a freind, adorned with a tasteful image on the front and inside there is a message expressing their empathy and concern. However both the image and the message are clearly labeled ' Created using Artifical Intelligence'- how do you feel about your freind now? How sincere does their expression of sympathy appear when the very message they chose to express it was written by a machine? Or perhaps you are in the market for a book for your children- what about this one where it says boldly on the cover ' Created using Artificial Intelligence'- it will be nice, won't it, reading a book to your kids that has been written and illustrated by a machine. And why not buy a novel for yourself at the same time- what about this one- it too says on the cover 'Created using Artificial intelligence'- so as you settle down to read you can appreciate the fact that the book in your hands will take far longer to read than it did to write. So no- AI Generated content will NOT be clearly labeled in the future because to do so will destroy any economic advantage of using AI Generated content- and too much money has already been invested in the prospect of replacing human made content with AI. At the very least such a labeling law would bifurcate the market into 'Human Made' and 'Machine Made' which would lead to a situation where the machine made content would inevitably come to be seen as cheap and nasty- a downmarket substitute for the real thing.

True so called "AI" will explain to you all or yours grandchildrens why me

The low number of views reveals the levels of current human intelligence.