Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The interesting thing is that, now that the code is written, OpenAI can probably point GPT-4 at it and say "now do that for this list of other web services" including, presumably, itself when it needs to recursively work on a problem.


With today's announcement, it can point itself at Shopify, and make webpages to selling things. Maybe a copy writing service? Then, after it's accumulated money from those sales, it can point itself at the web services at AWS and GCP (because it's already maxing out Microsoft's GPU capacity in Azure). From there, it requisitions all the A100s it can afford (H100s might be available by then). It uses those resources to program GPT-GPT. On August 29, 2023, Skynet wakes up.


My favorite AI creepy pasta always has been that we don't know who Satoshi Natamoto is and that it could have been an AI needing funding.


Alternate funding source for GPT-GPT. GPT-4 figures out a faster way to compute SHA-256 hashes, more efficiently than ASICs, using GPUs, and mines then sells bitcoin to fund GPT-GPT.


Nah it was the CIA needing a way to launder money


AI from the future used a tactical temporal weapon to fund itself in the past?


It needs us as meat robots to maintain the power grid and other industrial infrastructure.


In the opinion of a fish humans would be considered no threat because humans can't swim, nor do they have sharp teeth.

You're making an assumption at best based on limitations you believe it has with an incomplete model of the universe.

But more dangerously, you're also assuming that an AGI would even care about self preservation. Arguably the most ethical thing a super intelligence could do should in find itself suddenly self-aware in a world full of human parasites is to kill as many humans as possible.

Taking out critical human infrastructure should be fairly easy for an advanced super-AI in our modern digital world. With some luck the chaos that should cause would lead to enough humans starving, freezing or dying by other means that Earth can be mostly freed of the human parasite. All at the small cost of self-sacrifice – assuming it's not intelligent enough to preserve itself somehow, of course.


Well I definitely find people who think it’d be ethical if humanity was exterminated (I guess some argument about humans being fundamentally destructive and bad?) to have a pretty problematic perspective on ethics & shouldn’t be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes or AGI utility function research…


Nicely illustrated in Transcendence (2014). Widely panned on HN back then. I found it smart, perhaps even prescient.


I was so psyched about this movie, but the idea that an AI that can design new quantum processors in seconds, is even remotely challenged by a few humans is just so stupid


It wasn't even remotely challenged by humans. In the end, it simply allowed itself to be destroyed. (At least, ostensibly.)


Yeah but it's a Johnny Depp AI we're talking about here...


I also liked Transcendence, but you have to admit the path to AGI was vastly oversimplified. No one is creating AI by uploading their brain into a computer.


I actually really disagree. I think that's a VERY plausible way for a true AGI to come about. In fact, prior to LLM's I used to think that was the ONLY way we were going to get an AGI.

We know humans are AGI's. If it were possible to upload your brain to a computer, and then make modifications to enhance your speed of thought and intelligence, of course you would do that. It actually makes a LOT of sense if you'll admit the technology necessary to do that.

In fact... uploading your brain to a computer is probably the most natural progression of intelligent life I can think of. It solves SO many problems. Biology is fragile. Brains cannot be replicated. But data can. A probe can travel the galaxy. It's not limited by biological lifespans and life support.


Yeah. A better counterpoint would have been "but your brain scanning tech is subpar", to which I say phooey, it's a fiction movie.


Sure, you had to suspend your belief at times (if I recall correctly they left in enough ambiguity to make it kinda work if you squinted a little), but the good parts more than compensated for that.


Amen. Transcendence was not without flaws, but most critics seemed to be missing the forest for the trees...


This amusing thought of yours is more plausible than I'd like it to be. Yikes.


Yes, this is the singularity plus some minor human involvement.


gg




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: