前沿实验室应如何合作确保AI安全？
“We must moving beyond apocalyptic rhetoric toward the concrete questions: How should frontier labs ...
Gary Marcus作为AI领域资深人士，分享了他对AI安全现状的看法，从担忧到更关注实验室的实际行动，观点很实在。
Gary Marcus认为，随着模型能力提升，AI风险并未消失，但最大的不确定性在于前沿实验室是否会真正投资于对齐。他强调，AI末日概率并非外生变量，而是取决于各方行动。当前讨论应超越末日论，聚焦于实验室如何合作、如何对齐激励以及如何诚实地与公众沟通。
“We must moving beyond apocalyptic rhetoric toward the concrete questions: How should frontier labs ...
“We must moving beyond apocalyptic rhetoric toward the concrete questions: How should frontier labs collaborate on safety? How do we align incentives? And how do we communicate honestly with the public about what these systems can do today, and where they are going?” Houda Nait El Barj @Houda_nait I was more worried about AI existential risk in 2022 than I am today, even though models are vastly more capable. The risks haven't disappeared: I always expected models to become incredibly powerful. But, one of the biggest uncertainties back then was whether frontier labs would actually invest seriously in alignment as capabilities scaled. Over the past few years, I’ve updated meaningfully on that. I’m also surprised by how p(doom) is often discussed. It is not an exogenous constant waiting to be measured; it is endogenous. The probability of catastrophe depends on what labs, governments, researchers and society actually do. A number stated without assumptions about those actions tells us very little. I've always believed the expected benefits of AI vastly outweigh the costs, otherwise I wouldn’t be working on it. But that is conditional on us getting this right. We must moving beyond apocalyptic rhetoric toward the concrete questions: How should frontier labs collaborate on safety? How do we align incentives? And how do we communicate honestly with the public about what these systems can do today, and where they are going? I am glad Dario brought the conversation back toward those concrete questions. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 4 🔄 2 ❤️ 7 👀 2430 📊 4 ⚡