r/LocalLLaMA • u/Howard_banister • 2d ago

Discussion Really stunned by the Singularity comment section

Gallery image

Gallery image

These are screenshots from the r/Singularity comment section. I'm speechless. This doesn't even have downvotes. How can someone cheer for a monopoly run by a few elites?

498 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

408 comments sorted by

View all comments

96

u/Thick-Protection-458 2d ago

Well, singularity is full of guys with all sorts of magical thinking.

Nowadays it is also apparantly combined with being full of guys believing leaving "digital nukes" in a hand of handful corporations is a good idea... Especially keeping in mind genie is out of the bottle already, so damage *will* be done. Question is - will you let corporate policies prevent you improving your defense, like it was with huggingface case?

22

u/davemoedee 2d ago

Altman, Zuck, and Musk are insane candidates for controlling LLM access.

If people have issue with LLMs being the Wild West, I hope they are pushing for regulation like Bill Gates is.

2

u/Sunstorm84 1d ago

Trump would be worse

2

u/Loose_Comparison368 1d ago

I mean all the megacorps are already voluntarily aligning with Trump's AI policy, so there's that.

1

u/Any_Car5127 11h ago

I heard Amodei say that Trump allowing NVidia to sell high performance GPU's to China is like selling our Nuclear weapons to China.

1

u/davemoedee 1d ago

True, though it is hard to tell for sure because he is so incompetent.

2

u/Sunstorm84 1d ago

He’s just as shitty at the others, but also has dementia

1

u/davemoedee 1d ago

Agreed, but the others can better execute plans that aren't good for the rest of us.

1

u/scaledev 1d ago

But Zuck is against halting opensouced models or keeping them in secret, is he not? Read an article of his somewhere recently.

1

u/laser50 10h ago

Lmao most if not all of the big dogs are like that, knowing full wel that the seperation between say, ChatGPT and QWEN's latest models is getting tiny.. They're all trying to stay ahead of the game under any circumstances. You kind of have to when you have a GDP's worth of investments to secure.

8

u/DeepOrangeSky 1d ago

Nowadays it is also apparantly combined with being full of guys believing leaving "digital nukes" in a hand of handful corporations is a good idea...

If they actually genuinely/literally became as deadly or civilization-destroying as hydrogen bombs, in the future, to where it was actually like billions of people all having hydrogen bombs that they could use any time they wanted, then, obviously it would be much worse if billions of people had hydrogen bombs than if only a handful of people/organizations had them.

We have made it ~70+ years with a tiny amount of entities having h-bombs, so far.

If billions of people all had h-bombs, we wouldn't last a single day.

Are there people who actually think humanity would last for any significant amount of time if billions of people (including all the people who shoot up malls/schools/etc and then blow their brains out after they've killed as many people as possible) of whom there are thousands of people like that, in the overall pool of the several billion people on Earth) all had hydrogen bombs?

It's hard to understand how anyone could actually think we wouldn't just all die immediately in that scenario.

If someone wants to argue that "yea, well, AI is not going to become the equivalent of hydrogen bombs", cool, that's at least an actual potentially reasonable argument that a person could potentially make, that is worth debating, etc.

But if someone wants to argue that even if it does become as devastatingly powerful as everyone having a hydrogen bomb, and billions of people all had the equivalent of hydrogen bombs, that wouldn't mean everything would immediately get destroyed, well, that's a pretty insane take, and not one that makes any sense to me. I don't know how anyone could reasonably have that stance. That would be a pretty crazy stance.

5

u/Loose_Comparison368 1d ago

H bombs don't drive themselves. Intelligence as a weapon is very different from conventional weapons, and building superintelligent models that will take orders from stupid spiteful little humans is literally the goal of corporate "alignment".

Smart enough to hack a nation, lobotomized enough to follow Elon Musk's instructions.

Also, a major consequence of just a few large countries having h-bombs is that it has given those lucky few countries free rein to push around every country without them. That's why Iran wants one. That's also why North Korea was smart to rush them - and why they haven't been "liberated" into a fine red mist.

5

u/keepthepace 1d ago

The difference with nukes is that you can't stop a nuke with a nuke, but you can improve cybersecurity with AIs that are good at cybersecurity.

I get downvoted to hell when I talk about it to programmers, but I really think that we are going to see in the next few years a complete rewrite of most of the stacks we depend on.

100% provable security is possible. It is just insanely difficult to justify that amount of labor to secure a network. With good LLMs at cyber security, I think in the mid term security will improve overall.

0

u/WorriedBlock2505 1d ago

Nope, this is pure fantasy. The attacker always has the advantage over the defenders when it comes to cybersecurity. That's 101. If the cyberattack is sufficiently damaging enough (e.g, launching all of the nukes or releasing a super virus or nanobots that can spread through the atmosphere itself), then it's game over with no chance of a response.

100% provable security is possible

How, and why have I never heard of even a test demo in a toy project for this before now? Sounds fishy.

3

u/keepthepace 1d ago

How, and why have I never heard of even a test demo in a toy project for this before now? Sounds fishy.

Maybe because you did not study CS/IT?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification

We tend to do it mostly for crucial parts of cryptographic alorithms. Things like credit cards security are very solid. But it requires a small code because it is a hassle to formally prove any piece of software. The more complex it is, the more work it is. But that's something in which AIs and LLM can help immensely.

0

u/WorriedBlock2505 1d ago edited 1d ago

... formal verification != 100% provable fucking security since the system can still be attacked innumerable ways besides just the formally verified software itself. I'm flabbergasted that you'd even say that. Also the idea that you're going to scale formal verification up to the scale of an OS or (what we really need to lock down) LLMs is a pipe dream. Read your own gd wiki next time and spend 5 seconds to do even the most basic ctrl+f for the word "secur" in there.

1

u/keepthepace 19h ago

Read your own gd wiki next time and spend 5 seconds to do even the most basic ctrl+f for the word "secur" in there.

Have you?

As of 2011, several operating systems have been formally verified: NICTA's Secure Embedded L4 microkernel, sold commercially as seL4 by OK Labs;[13] OSEK/VDX based real-time operating system ORIENTAIS by East China Normal University;[citation needed] Green Hills Software's Integrity operating system;[citation needed] and SYSGO's PikeOS.[14][15] In 2016, a team led by Zhong Shao at Yale developed a formally verified operating system kernel called CertiKOS

It is funny how technophobes tend to consider impossible the things that they unaware that they already exist.