After several months of reflection, I’ve come to only one conclusion: a cryptographically secure, decentralized ledger is the only solution to making AI safer.
Quelle surprise
There also needs to be an incentive to contribute training data. People should be rewarded when they choose to contribute their data (DeSo is doing this) and even more so for labeling their data.
Get pennies for enabling the systems that will put you out of work. Sounds like a great deal!
All of this may sound a little ridiculous but it’s not. In fact, the work has already begun by the former CTO of OpenSea.
I dunno, that does make it sound ridiculous.
Should be the header image or sidebar or whatever for this lemmy.
This comment from the HN discussion is too funny
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37725746
The number of AI safety sessions I’ve joined where the speakers have no real AI experience talking about potentially bad futures, based on zero CS experience and little ‘evidence’ beyond existing sci-fi books and anecdotes, have left me very jaded on the subject as a ‘discipline’.
“who needs to listen to the poet/writers/painters/sculptors/… anyway? they’re just there to make things that look good in my palazzo garden!”
Yes, there is a lot of bunk AI safety discussions. But there are legitimate concerns as well.
Hey, don’t worry, someone’s standing up for–
AI is close to human level.
Uh, never mind
BrawndoBlockchain has got whatplantsLLMs crave, it’s gotelectrolytesledgers.Thinking otherwise is dumb (and, remember, that’s not you!).
Guy goes through so much effort to mash AI and blockchain together and he decides to be lazy here lol
Also, if believing this stuff is for smart people then just call me a fucking idiot.
I actually get the impression that was letting the mask slip for a moment: “remember, they must at all times think you’re clever! Never let them think otherwise!”
this thing was a fucking slog of bad ideas and annoying memes so I skimmed it, but other than the obvious (blockchains are way too inefficient for any of this to come even close to working), did the author even mention validation? cause if I’m contributing my own data and my own tags then I’m definitely going to either insert a whole bunch of nonsense into the model to get paid, or use an adversarial model to generate malicious data and weights and use that to break the model. the way crypto shitheads fix this is with a centralized oracle, which means all of this is just a pointless exercise in combining the two most environmentally wasteful types of grift tech ever invented
Considering the mix of bad ideas, I suppose the AI model will check itself. Maybe by mining.
This article is an incredibly deep mine of bad takes, wow
Let’s just build a data intensive application on a foundation where we have none of that data nearby to start! Let’s forget about all other prior distribution models! Let’s make faulty rationalists and leaps of assumptions!
And then you click through the profile:
I’ve spent a decade working in fintech at AIG, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Goldman Sachs, Fast, and Affirm in roles spanning data science, machine learning, software, data engineering, credit, and fraud.
Ah, he’s angling to get a priesthood role if this new faith thing happens. Got it.
I don’t care what bad tech bingo card you’re using, this has to be bingo.
Get pennies for enabling the systems that will put you out of work. Sounds like a great deal!
I still don’t understand why these people felt that art was something that had to be automated. I suppose people must have felt the same way when the printing press was invented, but while AI is quicker for the end user it requires significantly more in terms of energy and resources.
People don’t have data, they have blog posts, vacation photos, and text messages. Talking about personal data as an abstract thing leads to error.
If you’re into blockchain, AI is somewhere where blockchain would obviously be a huge boon. It’s only in the real world where it’s a laughable combination.
I’ve thought for quite some time that blockchain … had incredible implications but I didn’t know what for…and it turns out the answer was hiding in the next hype cycle.
AHAHHAAHAHAH
After going in suspicious, this actually sounds like a pretty decent idea.
The technology isn’t stopping or going away any more than the cotton gin did. May as well put control in as many hands as possible. The alternative is putting it under the sole control of a few megacorps, which seems worse. Is there another option I’m not seeing?
The guy is the epitome of a “bro”. He has a vague understanding of a philosophical problem, boiled it down into a false dichotomy, and then invented in his head a solution that simultaneously demonstrates he has no comprehension whatsoever of LLMs and only a basic working model of the blockchain
no thx
Yeah seriously, you should look into VC work as your next career. You have that rare blend of wilful blindness and optimistic gullibility which seem to be job requirements there, you’ll do great!
Not using blockchains, for a start. Blockchains centralise by design, because of economies of scale.
Everyone puts legal limits in place to prevent LLMs from ingesting their content, the ones who break those limits are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the whole thing collapses in a downward spiral, and everyone pretends it never happened.
Well, a man can dream.
