Paper in Science: Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress
post by JanB (JanBrauner) · 2024-05-23T08:40:40.678Z · LW · GW · 2 commentsContents
Authors: Abstract: None 2 comments
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn0117
Authors:
Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Yuval Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Gillian Hadfield, Jeff Clune, Tegan Maharaj, Frank Hutter, Atılım Güneş Baydin, Sheila McIlraith, Qiqi Gao, Ashwin Acharya, David Krueger, Anca Dragan, Philip Torr, Stuart Russell, Daniel Kahneman, Jan Brauner*, Sören Mindermann*
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI’s impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how to manage them. Society’s response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness and barely address autonomous systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we outline a comprehensive plan that combines technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.
2 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by habryka (habryka4) · 2024-05-24T00:49:58.874Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BikZyjiEgFmo7HQHm/ [LW · GW]
Replies from: SoerenMind↑ comment by SoerenMind · 2024-05-25T14:57:01.890Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Thanks, we did look into the academic norms around this and concluded that including him was likely the standard choice. This choice was especially clear since (if I remember right) there was no further round of approval from the other authors either for the final edits after the relevant point in time.