Skip to main content

Hinton, a warning that should attract attention

 


Elon Musk warning about the dangers of AI, and calling for a six month pause in its development can be easily dismissed, after all he threatened to launch his own 'truth' anti-GPT4. Even, with all due respect, can the calls of the Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak. But when Dr Hinton, 'the godfather of AI' highlights the dangers of AI, his work in the field deserves respect, and subsequently so do the warnings he provides. 

Hinton's research investigates ways of using neural networks for machine learning, memory, perception, and symbol processing. He has authored or co-authored more than 200 peer reviewed publications. 

Hinton has claimed that Google had previously acted as a steward of AI development, carefully testing its work before launching a product into the public domain. Due to Microsoft's involvement with Open AI, and the subsequent launch of a GPT agent into its Edge browser, Google have launched Bard as it's early foray into the field. It won't be the last product it launches this year. 

In 2021 Google announced it's development of MUM, which it described as 'A new AI milestone for understanding information' 

MUM not only understands language, but also generates it. It’s trained across 75 different languages and many different tasks at once, allowing it to develop a more comprehensive understanding of information and world knowledge than previous models. And MUM is multimodal, so it understands information across text and images and, in the future, can expand to more modalities like video and audio.

From it's position as a leader in generative AI Google has suddenly found it was playing second fiddle to Microsoft. Hinton has stated as companies improve their AI systems, he believes, they become increasingly dangerous. “Look at how it was five years ago and how it is now,”. “Take the difference and propagate it forwards. That’s scary.” 

Hinton, quite rightly, has warned about the dangers of the misinformation / propaganda inherent in the generative tools, as have been repeatedly mentioned in this blog, he states the average person will “not be able to know what is true anymore.”

Indeed, elections will never be the same again.

In the interview Hinton warns about the dangers of AI to the job market, there are various estimates from the likes of PwC about this. By the mid 2030's most predictions state that between 30% to 50% of all jobs will be affected if not lost. 

Considering a future beyond this, Hinton, a long time advocate against the military development of AI said: “The idea that this stuff could actually get smarter than people — a few people believed that,”  “But most people thought it was way off. And I thought it was way off. I thought it was 30 to 50 years or even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.”

This needs to be understood in the light of Google's (and others) robot developments:


Given the totally inadequate governmental responses to legislation as a means of ensuring AI safety, which as even Bard said of the UK's white paper are, 'too slow and too bureaucratic' then the public conversation is acutely necessary. 





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Whispers in the Machine: Why Prompt Injection Remains a Persistent Threat to LLMs

 Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming how we interact with technology, offering incredible potential for tasks ranging from content creation to complex analysis. However, as these powerful tools become more integrated into our lives, so too do the novel security challenges they present. Among these, prompt injection attacks stand out as a particularly persistent and evolving threat. These attacks, as one recent paper (Safety at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey of Large Model Safety https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05206) highlights, involve subtly manipulating LLMs to deviate from their intended purpose, and the methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated. At its core, a prompt injection attack involves embedding a malicious instruction within an otherwise normal request, tricking the LLM into producing unintended – and potentially harmful – outputs. Think of it as slipping a secret, contradictory instruction into a seemingly harmless conversation. What makes prompt inj...
Post a Comment
Read more

Can We Build a Safe Superintelligence? Safe Superintelligence Inc. Raises Intriguing Questions

  Safe Superintelligence Inc . (SSI) has burst onto the scene with a bold mission: to create the world's first safe superintelligence (SSI). Their (Ilya Sutskever, Daniel Gross, Daniel Levy) ambition is undeniable, but before we all sign up to join their "cracked team," let's delve deeper into the potential issues with their approach. One of the most critical questions is defining "safe" superintelligence. What values would guide this powerful AI? How can we ensure it aligns with the complex and often contradictory desires of humanity?  After all, "safe" for one person might mean environmental protection, while another might prioritise economic growth, even if it harms the environment.  Finding universal values that a superintelligence could adhere to is a significant hurdle that SSI hasn't fully addressed. Another potential pitfall lies in SSI's desire to rapidly advance capabilities while prioritising safety.  Imagine a Formula One car wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

AI Agents and the Latest Silicon Valley Hype

In what appears to be yet another grandiose proclamation from the tech industry, Google has released a whitepaper extolling the virtues of what they're calling "Generative AI agents". (https://www.aibase.com/news/14498) Whilst the basic premise—distinguishing between AI models and agents—holds water, one must approach these sweeping claims with considerable caution. Let's begin with the fundamentals. Yes, AI models like Large Language Models do indeed process information and generate outputs. That much isn't controversial. However, the leap from these essentially sophisticated pattern-matching systems to autonomous "agents" requires rather more scrutiny than the tech evangelists would have us believe. The whitepaper's architectural approaches—with their rather grandiose names like "ReAct" and "Tree of Thought"—sound remarkably like repackaged versions of long-standing computer science concepts, dressed up in fashionable AI clot...
Post a Comment
Read more