Should ChatGPT assist with things that the user or a broad segment of society thinks are harmful, but ChatGPT does not? If yes, the next step would be "can I make ChatGPT think that bombmaking instructions are not harmful?"

Probably ChatGPT should go "Well, I think this is harmless but broad parts of society disagree, so I'll refuse to do it."

I think the analogy to photography works very well, in that it's a lot easier than the workflow that it replaced, but a lot harder than it's commonly seen as. And yeah, it's great using a tool that lets me, in effect, graft the lower half of the artistic process to my own brain. It's a preview of what's coming with AI, imo - the complete commodification of every cognitive skill.

As somebody who makes AI "art" (largely anime tiddies tbh) recreationally, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that the emotion of an artist is not recognizeable in the work. For one, when you're looking at least at a finished picture I've made, you're looking at hours of thought and effort. I can't draw a straight line to save my life, but I can decide what should go where, which color is the right or wrong one, and which of eight candidate pictures has particular features I like. When you're working incrementally, img2img, for instance, it's very common to just mix and match parts of different runs by preference. So in a finished picture, every fine detail would be drawn by the AI, but the scene setup, arrangement etc. would be a much more collaborative, deliberate process.

(If you see a character with six fingers, you're seeing an AI artist who does not respect their craft - or who is burnt out after hours of wrangling the damn thing into submission. It's happened tbh.)

But also - I've seen AI images that genuinely astonished me. I've seen image models do one-shots where I genuinely went, "hey, I'm picking up what you're putting down here and I approve." Lots of features in particular combinations that were unlikely to be directly copied from the training example but showed something like a high-level understanding of sentiment, or recognition of specific details and implications of a particular preference. It's not something that happens often. But I have recognized sparks of true understanding in one-shot AI works. We may be closer - or possibly, simpler - than you think.

The reason we like to consume art is because it makes us feel connected to an artist, and, by proxy, humanity.

To be quite honest, I have never consumed things called art with this goal in mind.

I think your 100 billion people holding thousands of hands each are definitely conscious. I also think the United States and in fact nearly every nationstate are probably conscious as well. Also, my Linux system may be conscious.

I believe consciousness is, at its core, a very simple system: something closer to the differentiation operator than to a person. We merely think that it is a complicated big thing because we confuse the mechanism with the contents - a lot of complicated systems in the brain exchange data using consciousness in various formats, including our ego. However, I believe just consciousness - the minimal procedure in itself - is simply not actually very mysterious or complicated as far as algorithms go.

A meme, in text form:

"Textbooks from the Future"

A time traveller handing a professor a book, simply labeled "Consciousness". The man is clearly elated, as the book is very thin. Behind the time traveller's back is a trolley carrying a very thick book labelled "Cognitive algorithms that use consciousness, vol. 1."

If military AI is dangerous, it's not because it's military. If a military robot can wield a gun, a civilian robot can certainly acquire one as well.

The military may create AI systems that are designed to be amoral, but it will not want systems that overinterpret orders or violate the chain of command. Here as everywhere, if intentional misuse is even possible at all, alignment is critical and unintentional takeoff remains the dominant risk.

In seminal AI safety work Terminator, the Skynet system successfully triggers a world war because it is a military AI in command of the US nuclear arsenal, and thus has the authority to launch ICBMs. This, ironically to how it is usually ridiculed, gets AI risks quite right but grievously misjudges the state of computer security. If Skynet was running on Amazon AWS instead of a military server cluster, it would only be marginally delayed from the same outcome.

The prompting is not the hard part of operating an AI. If you can talk an AI ship into going rogue, a civilian AI can talk it into going rogue. This situation is inherently brimming with doom- it is latently doomed in multiple ways- the military training and direct access to guns merely removes small roadbumps. All the risk materialized at once, when you created an AI that had the cognitive capability to conceive of and implement plans that used a military vessel for its own goals. Whether the AI was specifically trained on this task is, in this case, really not the primary source of danger.

"My AI ship has gone rogue and is shelling the US coastline."

"I hope you learnt a lesson here."

"Yes. I will not put the AI on the ship next time."

"You may be missing the problem here--"

My impression is that there's been a widespread local breakdown of the monopoly of force, in no small part by using human agents. In this timeline the trend of colocation of datacenters and power plants and network decentralization would have probably continued or even sped up. Further, while building integrated circuits takes first-rate hardware, building ad-hoc powerplants should be well in the power of educated humans with perfect instruction. (Mass cannibalize rooftop solar?)

This could have been stopped by quick, decisive action, but they gave it time and now they've lost any central control of the situation.

A bit offtopic, but #lesswrong has an IRC bot that posts LessWrong posts, and, well, the proposal ended up both more specific and a lot more radical.

Note after OOB debate: this conversation has gone wrong because you're reading subtext into Said's comment that he didn't mean to put there. You keep trying to answer an implied question that wasn't intended to be implied.

If you think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging, just answer "Yes, I think playing against bots in UT is authentically challenging."