Geoffrey Hinton

The government should insist that the big companies do lots of safety experiments, spend considerable resources like a third of their compute resources on doing safety experiments while these things are still not as intelligent on us to see how they might evade control and what we could do about it. And I think that's a lot of the debate at OpenAI. The people interested in safety like Ilya Sutskever wanted significant resources to be spent on safety. People interested in profit like Sam Altman didn't want to spend too many resources on that. (source)

I used to think it was a long way off, but I now think it's serious and fairly close [...] The alarm bell I’m ringing has to do with the existential threat of them taking control. (source)

While the expansion of large language models is a significant step forward, I believe that their continuous development could indeed bring us closer to achieving artificial general intelligence. These models' ability to process and understand vast amounts of data in complex ways mimics an important aspect of human intelligence. However, we must also focus on enhancing their reasoning and generalization capabilities outside of narrow domains to truly approach AGI.

While AI has enormous potential in many fields, using it to predict criminal behavior raises complex ethical and societal issues. We need to carefully consider issues like bias, fairness, and the potential for misuse before deploying such technologies.

I believe that the development of emotion-detecting AI should be regulated to ensure ethical standards and protect individuals' privacy. Without proper oversight, there is a risk of misuse and potential harm. Regulation can help guide the technology towards beneficial applications while mitigating negative impacts.

As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated and integrated into everyday life, the need for thoughtful regulation becomes imperative. This isn't about stifling innovation; it's about ensuring safety, fairness, and accountability. We must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that AI technologies are used to benefit society as a whole.

As a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, I believe that we must take responsibility for the applications and implications of the technology we create. Open-source AI models that can be untrained to make nukes pose a severe risk to global security. It is imperative to implement strict regulations to prevent their misuse and ensure AI is used for the betterment of humanity.

While 'understand' is a term that may require a specific definition when applied to machines, I believe that large language models like GPT-3 show signs of understanding in a functional sense. They can infer context, follow instructions, and produce coherent text, which demonstrates a form of understanding that's useful in numerous AI applications.

Despite significant advancements in AI, learning programming remains crucial. It not only empowers us to better understand and shape AI technologies but also enhances our ability to critically engage with them. Programming offers the foundational skills necessary to innovate and secure a future where humans and AI collaborate effectively.

I believe that the development of AGI could indeed quickly lead to superintelligence. Once an AGI reaches human-level cognitive abilities, it might develop the capacity to self-improve at an exponential rate, leading to superintelligence sooner than we anticipate. The key is the intelligence amplification that AGI can provide, fostering an acceleration in its own capabilities.

As an advocate for responsible AI development, I strongly believe in creating a global institute for AI safety. Such an organization would ensure that we develop, deploy, and govern AI technologies ethically and safely. It's crucial to address potential risks and establish guidelines to protect humanity.

While improving Spanish language models is important, releasing Spanish data into the public domain raises serious concerns about privacy and data security. Ethical considerations must take precedence over technological advancements. We need to ensure the protection of individuals' data before making such a decision.

As a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence, I believe demanding explanations from AI for every decision can constrain the development of more sophisticated neural networks. It's akin to asking a bird to explain how it flies. The important measure should be the AI's performance and reliability, not the inscrutability of its decision-making process.

As a pioneer in deep learning and AI research, I strongly believe that open-source AI can be more dangerous than closed-source AI. Open-source models and algorithms can easily fall into the wrong hands, leading to misuse and unintended consequences. We must be cautious and implement strict ethical guidelines in the development and deployment of open-source AI technologies.

I believe third-party audits should be mandatory for major AI systems. Transparency and accountability are crucial as we deploy AI in critical areas. Independent audits can help ensure these systems are safe, ethical, and unbiased.

As AI continues to advance, it has the potential to automate a wide range of jobs, leading to significant economic and social challenges. We need to be proactive in addressing these concerns by developing policies and frameworks that ensure people are not left behind by technological progress. I believe it's crucial to balance innovation with societal welfare.

I strongly believe that AI systems have the potential to revolutionize healthcare by making important medical decisions. These systems can process vast amounts of data more quickly and accurately than humans, leading to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments. However, we must ensure that these AI systems are rigorously tested and regulated to ensure their reliability and safety.

I believe that while AGI has the potential to revolutionize many industries, it won't necessarily create abundance for all. The benefits of AGI might be unequally distributed, leading to increased inequality instead of universal prosperity. We need policies to ensure that the technological advancements benefit everyone, not just a select few.

Predicting the exact timeline for the emergence of a general AI system more capable than any human in every respect is extremely difficult. While we have made significant advances, the complexities and challenges involved make it uncertain whether this will happen by 2028. We must continue to research and proceed with caution.

As someone deeply involved in AI research, I understand the complexities and potential risks associated with artificial superintelligence (ASI). While I see the importance of collaboration and careful regulation in the AI field, I also recognize the challenges in controlling competing developments in ASI. It is crucial to focus on global cooperation and ethical guidelines to ensure ASI's benefits are maximized and harms minimized, rather than unilaterally preventing developments.

As someone deeply involved in AI research, my primary focus is on advancing the technology and understanding its implications. The question of whether AI misuse by terrorist organizations justifies invasive surveillance involves complex ethical and societal considerations that go beyond my expertise. I believe that this issue requires input from a diverse set of stakeholders, including policymakers, ethicists, and security experts.

While I recognize the transformative potential of open-weight models with recursive self-improvement, I believe we need to proceed with caution. The ethical and societal implications are vast and complex. Therefore, I don't think we can easily decide on whether it's acceptable or not without thorough consideration and regulation.

As someone deeply involved in AI research, I understand the concerns about AI surpassing national power. However, nationalizing AI firms is a complex issue that involves various economic, ethical, and technological considerations. I believe in fostering collaboration between governments and AI firms to ensure responsible development and use of AI technologies, rather than taking a rigid stance on nationalization.

While neural interfaces are an exciting area of research, it's not clear to me how they would directly facilitate AI alignment. More evidence and study are needed before drawing conclusions.

While I recognize the potential benefits and risks of AI, I believe the ethical implications are complex. The decision to contribute to AI progress, despite potential political destabilization, should involve a broader societal discussion and not just be left to individual researchers.

While the EU AI Act addresses many important issues regarding the ethical use and development of artificial intelligence, the decision to repeal or modify it involves complexities that might require more insight and data than currently available. It's essential to carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks before making such significant regulatory changes.