Open letter calls for pause on AI dev

First thoughts on this: Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter As AI continues to advance at breakneck speed, a group of experts (including Elon Musk, Yoshua Bengio, Steve Wozniak, Yuval Harari, Andrew Yng, Emad Mostaque) is calling for a pause on giant AI experiments that could pose significant risks to society. When these guys send a message I do think we should definitely listen. The open letter emphasizes the importance of developing AI technologies in a safe, ethical, and transparent manner that prioritizes the well-being of society. While we should certainly continue to innovate and explore the full potential of AI, we must also be mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into our lives, we need to ensure that it is developed and used in a responsible manner that benefits everyone. This means being transparent about the data and algorithms used to train AI systems, ensuring that they are used in ways that do not harm individuals or groups, and taking ethical considerations into account throughout the development process. As someone who is passionate about the potential of AI to improve our world, I support the call for a reflection (not necessarily a pause?) about giant AI experiments and a more thoughtful, responsible approach to AI development. Let's continue to innovate, but let's do so with the well-being of society as our top priority. What are your thoughts? Open letter here: https://lnkd.in/eEFNFWRm #AIethics #AIsafety #ResponsibleAI #FutureofAI #EthicalAI #Innovation #Society #Transparency #DataPrivacy #Technology #TechForGood #AIdevelopment #AIresearch

The "move fast and break things" mentality that shaped what Silicon Valley is today is now officially becoming a part of the AI race as well. More than 1,000 tech leaders, researchers and others are urging a moratorium on the development of the most powerful AI systems. They say these tools “profound risks to society and humanity.” This "risk" is even greater for women and other diverse groups who historically get left behind when technology advances. Working women face a higher threat of automation compared to men. What's more is an analysis of LinkedIn data that I did in 2018 found that only 22% of AI professionals across the globe are female, compared to 78% who are male. (https://lnkd.in/gnz7H6kq) Those numbers have barely budged in the last five years. Working in Web3, I see every day the threats that marginalized groups face when trying to gain opportunities within the next stage of the Internet. I hope our corporate and policy leaders can come up with solutions now before it is too late.

Experts and industry watchers have had a lot to say about the open letter published by Future of Life Institute (FLI) calling for all AI labs to immediately pause the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. The goal of the moratorium is to better understand the risks of deploying the technology at scale.? Even those in favor of companies slowing their roll on AI development don't consider voluntary guidance enough. But those basking in the technological advancements don't think a moratorium is a practical approach. Some are looking to the government to step in. Thanks to Krishna Gade, Aaron Levie, Connor Leahy and more for talking with me today about the letter and the current technology landscape. Read more about how experts are responding: https://lnkd.in/e4KCeguA

“Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?” The previous paragraph is a quote from an open letter organized by the Future of Life Institute (FLI). The letter calls on “all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium.” The purpose of the pause is to allow? “AI developers … work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate the development of robust AI governance systems.” ? Do we really expect governments all over the world to act quickly and unanimously? In which alternative world is this going to happen? By the time governments will unite (if that ever happens), AI will continue to evolve and far exceed today’s capabilities. I firmly believe that AI developers and regulators must work together to put a system in place to guard against harmful and malicious AI. This is already happening in Europe where the European parliament is working on The Artificial Intelligence Act. It is time the US government creates a similar initiative for federal legislation that encourages innovation but also guards against irresponsible and unethical use of AI. Such legislation efforts are sure to take more than 6 months. The European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act in April 2021 and it’s still not in place. Stopping all work until a law is in place will just leave the companies that will abide by the moratorium way behind others. So yes, encourage the government to enact the proper legislation, but don't try to stop progress. This was not an easy decision, but I do not plan to sign the letter. What about you? Note: If you are not clear about the potential risk of using AI, I am encouraging you to read some of my previous posts: #innovation #ai #artificialintelligence #ethicalai ________________________________________ ?? Need help with Innovation, strategy, or product delivery? I offer fractional CTO, CPO, transformational leadership, and technical management coaching services, through my consulting company MillmanTech.? ?? Follow me and ring the bell on my profile to get notified of new posts

Today I held a talk on the topic of Ethics of AI, and then later in the evening I found out about the open letter published on the webpage of Future of Life Institute. Some pretty heavy weight names have signed the petition to pause development of Giant AI for 6 months. A pause that according to the letter should be used to establish guidelines for developing and auditing these systems in a way that is safe for and benefits humanity. I am really hoping this sparks some debate and interest in the topic!

I wanted to share my thoughts on the "Pause Giant AI Experiments" open letter. In short, I do not like it. ? The letter calls for more regulation which I think is needed but wraps it in a completely unnecessary sci-fi narrative about AI world domination, and time-wasting advocacy for an unenforceable ban on new research. ? AGGRANDIZING NARRATIVE ? The most advanced AI model is GPT-4 created by OpenAI which even the OpenAI CEO describes as "more impressive on first use than it does after you spend more time with it." If we stick to claims about AI capabilities for which we have evidence, GPT-4 can score at around the 90th percentile on various tests like the GRE. This is great but not world-ending. Moreover, there is good reason to believe these scores overestimate GPT-4’s reasoning ability since it will have been trained on data that closely mirrors the content of the tests. ? DISTRACTION FROM REAL HARMS ? Professor Emily Bender, whose work was cited in the open letter, has come out as a strong critic. She argues that the more plausible harms of the current generation of AI technology are: · Concentration of power in the hands of a few · Entrenchment of systems of oppression · Damage to the information ecosystem primarily due to misinformation The most pressing concern is not that large language models will usurp us. Quite the opposite. They likely represent a regression to prior less egalitarian distribution of power in society. ? ARBITRARY AND UNREALISTIC ? A planet-wide ban on improvement in AI research seems unenforceable and unlikely since multiple organizations around the world have both the resources and strong incentives to pursue this technology. The open letter proposes a pause on developing systems more powerful than OpenAI's newly launched GPT-4. The reasoning behind drawing the line at the best product offering of the most dominant market participant is unclear. The criterion "more powerful" is also unclear. Improvements in large language model performance can come from improving the data quality and training techniques, not just the raw computational power. ? SUMMARY ? According to Professor Emily Bender, the organization hosting the letter, the Future of Life organization, are Longtermists which she describes as a group of people "focused on maximizing the happiness of billions of future beings who live in computer simulations". ? While this hasn't been a prominent critique so far, the wackiness of their starting premises might be important if they ever make a credible effort to build a political coalition and enact change. ? Although more than a thousand people have reportedly signed the open letter, I am not convinced of the vetting process. AI luminary Yann LeCun was initial claimed as a signatory only for it to be later revealed that his name had been added fraudulently. The letter's level of political support might be much smaller than it seems. ? Ultimately, I think the letter is dead on arrival and there won't be a ban.

Profits or ethics? Yesterday, a group of prominent figures signed an open letter calling for a six-month moratorium on large-scale AI experiments. The letter argues that pausing AI experimentation would give us more time to catch up and establish ethical guidelines for the technology (https://lnkd.in/gZesANPN). While the idea of pausing AI experimentation may seem like a plausible harm reduction strategy to implement prior to formal regulation, the context behind the open letter raises some questions. First, and perhaps most tellingly, some of the letter's most prominent signatories represent tech companies that have fallen behind the curve of AI development. As such, the call for a pause reads more as an attempt to buy time and accelerate their own AI development efforts rather than a genuine concern for establishing and implementing guidelines aimed at minimizing the potential harms of AI. What if the letter had originated from a different group, such as concerned educators, instead? As we’ve observed since the release of ChatGPT, those working in classrooms are at the frontlines of navigating this new frontier, tasked as they are with preparing students for a world in which they must live and work alongside AI. They also have the most to gain from a pause on AI experimentation, as it would give them time to ensure that students–and they themselves–are equipped to navigate an AI-driven world. It is worth noting that many tech companies, universities, and independent bodies have already established their own ethical guidelines for AI development. In recent years, for example, we have witnessed the rise of teams dedicated to the formalization and implementation of ethical AI. Unfortunately, some of those teams have also been dissolved by the very institutions that set them up in the first place. So, who is to say that this letter is not just another prioritization of profits over ethics? #largelanguagemodels #ai #aiethics

The call for a 6 month moratorium on making AI progress beyond GPT-4 is a terrible idea. I'm seeing many new applications in education, healthcare, food, ... that'll help many people. Improving GPT-4 will help. Lets balance the huge value AI is creating vs. realistic risks. There is no realistic way to implement a moratorium and stop all teams from scaling up LLMs, unless governments step in. Having governments pause emerging technologies they don’t understand is anti-competitive, sets a terrible precedent, and is awful innovation policy. Responsible AI is important, and AI has risks. The popular press narrative that AI companies are running amok shipping unsafe code is not true. The vast majority (sadly, not all) of AI teams take responsible AI and safety seriously. Let's invest more in safety while we advance the technology, rather than stifle progress. A 6 month moratorium is not a practical proposal. To advance AI safety, regulations around transparency and auditing would be more practical and make a bigger difference.?

Why is the "slow down AI" chain email libertarian? Because real support for governance and appropriate pacing in industry (that is, regulation) involves engaging with governMENTs. As many of us have been doing for over a decade now. The signatories of the Future of Life Institute (FLI)'s letter should be throwing their weight behind (voluntary) compliance to the EU's Digital Services Act and (forthcoming) Artificial Intelligence Act. They should be demonstrating with their own organisations best practice for DevOps, auditability, and transparency. They could do all these things now (and indeed perhaps slow some of the flashy progress a little, but probably accelerate useful, marketable progress.) Instead at least some of them are firing the people who had been making a difference, undermining the signals like verification that were helping establish valid authority. Here I speak particularly about Musk and Twitter. The loss of access that Chinese and Iranian activists suffered when Musk shut down Twitter's capacity to moderate autocratic governments flooding the site's hashtags was criminal. The US needs to recognise the tech giants for what they are: utilities, and apply appropriate scale of regulation to them. By the way, here's a terrific article about a lot of the other flaws in the chain letter. Thanks to Sharon Goldman for the reporting – I hadn't even kept up with all my awesome colleagues you did.