Intro to AI Safety, Remastered
Robert Miles AI Safety 6 HN recommenders · recommended in 5 months, 2022-2023
210K views · 5 years ago · talk · evergreen
Robert Miles gives a remastered introduction to AI safety, adapted from a talk in London. It lays out why advanced AI could go wrong and answers common objections.
The default link for newcomers wanting an approachable, entertaining introduction to AI risk and alignment.
9:33Avoiding Negative Side Effects: Concrete Problems in AI Safety part 1
Robert Miles AI Safety
161K views • 9 years ago
16:2910 Reasons to Ignore AI Safety
Robert Miles AI Safety
363K views • 6 years ago
15:27Why Not Just: Think of AGI Like a Corporation?
Robert Miles AI Safety
163K views • 7 years ago
1:57:02How We Prevent the AI’s from Killing us with Paul Christiano
Bankless
63K views • 3 years ago
1:07:31The A.I. Dilemma - March 9, 2023
Center for Humane Technology
3.7M views • 3 years ago
10:36Why Would AI Want to do Bad Things? Instrumental Convergence
Robert Miles AI Safety
274K views • 8 years ago
8:30Deadly Truth of General AI? - Computerphile
Computerphile
941K views • 11 years ago
11:47We Were Right! Real Inner Misalignment
Robert Miles AI Safety
271K views • 5 years ago
42:30Full interview: "Godfather of artificial intelligence" talks impact and potential of AI
CBS Mornings
2M views • 3 years ago
13:03Intelligence and Stupidity: The Orthogonality Thesis
Robert Miles AI Safety
710K views • 8 years ago
36:02ChatGPT with Rob Miles - Computerphile
Computerphile
517K views • 3 years ago
17:52Training AI Without Writing A Reward Function, with Reward Modelling
Robert Miles AI Safety
259K views • 6 years ago
48:32Sparks of AGI: early experiments with GPT-4
Sebastien Bubeck
1.8M views • 3 years ago
1:00:15Superintelligence: Science or Fiction? | Elon Musk & Other Great Minds
Future of Life Institute
664K views • 9 years ago
38:59StrictlyVC in conversation with Sam Altman, part two (OpenAI)
Connie Loizos
254K views • 3 years ago
47:41Ilya Sutskever (OpenAI Chief Scientist) — Why next-token prediction could surpass human intelligence
Dwarkesh Patel
789K views • 3 years ago
1:47:20Munk Debate on Artificial Intelligence | Bengio & Tegmark vs. Mitchell & LeCun
Policy-Relevant Science & Technology
118K views • 3 years ago
8:16Why Asimov's Laws of Robotics Don't Work - Computerphile
Computerphile
873K views • 11 years ago
14:28Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris
TED
3.9M views • 10 years ago
47:15Will AI outsmart human intelligence? - with 'Godfather of AI' Geoffrey Hinton
The Royal Institution
878K views • 1 year ago
7 comments from Hacker News
If only. There's a lot of space in between "our morality" (please do define that) and "what we want to be" where AGI can royally screw us. Check out Robert Miles on AI safety, here's a good intro: ▶ this video
I recommend Robert Miles's YouTube channel, and his "Intro to AI Safety, Remastered" is a good place to start: ▶ this video I find Robert Miles worryingly plausible when he says (about 12:40 into the video) "if you have a sufficiently powerful agent and you manage to come up with a really good objective function, which covers the top 20 things that humans value, the 21st thing that humans value is probably gone forever"
The basic argument is trivial: it is plausible that future systems achieve superhuman capability; capable systems necessarily have instrumental goals; instrumental goals tend to converge; human preferences are unlikely to be preserved when other goals are heavily selected for unless intentionally preserved; we don't know how to make AI systems encode any complex preference robustly. Robert Miles' videos are among the best presented arguments about specific points in this list, primary on the alignment side rather than the capabilities side, that I have seen for casual introduction. Eg. this one on instrumental convergence: link Eg. this introduction to the topic: ▶ this video He also has the community-led AI Safety FAQ, link , which gives brief answers to common questions. If you have specific questions I might be able to point to a more specific argument at a higher level of depth.
Take your pick? link link ▶ this video link link I could keep going but the reading on this spans for tens of thousands of pages of detailed reasoning and analysis, including mathematical proofs and lab-scale experiments.
I strongly suggest anyone doubtful of the reasoning behind these concerns or asking questions like "well why don't we just do x to solve this?" go check out Robert Miles' YouTube channel[1]. It's quite an approachable intro, often entertaining, doesn't take a long time to get through all the core videos, and very thoroughly answers all the "why not just do x" questions if you go through the whole set. He also does a good job of introducing a lot of the terms used in the field if you then want to go look up papers and get more into the details. One important point he makes is that when you're making a risk assessment you have to both consider the probability of something going wrong and the scope of the potential consequences. When the potential consequences are an existential threat you don't need a high probability to take them seriously. I also happen to think that if you watch all the material he makes a compelling argument that the odds of something going wrong are fairly high unless we start approaching AI research (and particularly safety and ethical concerns) drastically differently than we are now. [1] ▶ this video
Is there any chance you could add some links to AI Safety Resources such as Joe Carlsmith's Power Seeking AI ( link ) or Rob Miles Introduction to AI Safety ( ▶ this video )? Perhaps you could link to a resource on the AI box experiment as well? I know you vaguely gesture at it, but would likely be better to explicitly link people to resources if they haven't heard of it themselves.
Venkatesh’s argument is so poor it comes close to “not even wrong” territory. He doesn’t really cite any specific people or literature to disagree with, and instead makes only vague references to the “non-sense” of others. The most significant concerns around AI safety are not discussed nor even mentioned leading it to read almost as if he has no expertise whatsoever in this field, and indeed that seems to be the case. No need for an appeal to authority though - just taking a little time to hear the actual concerns and opinions on topic would be welcome. Great intro to the subject here, I wonder what his response would be? ▶ this video