The call for a pause in the development of advanced AI systems and the implementation of institutional control is due to the potential risks associated with uncontrolled AI development. These risks include the automation of jobs, the spread of disinformation, and the loss of control over civilization. The creators of leading technology companies recognize the need to approach AI development with caution and to ensure that the potential risks are fully controllable.

In terms of who should exercise control over AI development, this is a subject of ongoing debate. Some argue that government regulation is necessary to ensure that AI development is aligned with societal values and ethical considerations. Others argue that self-regulation within the tech industry is sufficient.

Building an institutional control system for AI development would require the collaboration of various stakeholders, including government regulators, industry leaders, and academic experts. Such a system would need to address issues such as ethical considerations, privacy concerns, and transparency in AI decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the development of AI should be subject to control to ensure that its potential risks are fully controllable. The exact nature of this control system, however, remains a subject of ongoing debate and will require collaboration between various stakeholders.

Dariusz Prokopowicz ,

The open letter[1] is wishful thinking at best. Let us sample some of the statements provided in the letter:

• "Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable."

The concept of manageable risk differs from individual to individual much less gather consensus on a population on what is a " manageable" risk

• "we call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4."

This is the most naive statement of the letter. What can be accomplished in 6 months? We have not even gathered consensus on the simple philosophical approach to ethics in the history of philosophy, much less on how to approach AI from an ethical standpoint. stopping AI research for 6 months will not have a significant impact (there are even journals dedicated to AI ethics in print tackling the issue for several years and there is pretense to solve this in 6 months!).

• "implement a set of shared safety protocols ...These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt."

The concept of beyond reasonable doubt will eventually fall on what is reasonable practice in the field and this leads to weak safety protocols.

• "AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal."

This statement cannot be more ambiguous in term definition and the references of the letter do not help.

The concept of stopping AI research should not be confused with regulating the commercial use of the technology. The letter aims at the wrong issue. Research cannot be stopped for ML, since anyone with a reasonable amount of computing power (which you can buy anyway in amazon) can continue to work in the subject. But, regulating business is easier since the major players will have the greatest impact in slowing down the misuse of the technology. also by regulating business more targeted restrictions on its use can be applied rather than vague lists of research topics.

References

[1] https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

The question is very long and not stated succinctly. Same with the long winding explanation and background behind.

We are talking here, about "institutional control" and in general, this isn't good.

Institutional control sounds terrible, in fact, to the free mind and to researchers... Sounds like thing of the past....like non-democratic, dictatorship thing that takes you back to the dark eras when institutional control was EVERYTHING...

Why someone needs an institutional control on a thing that is practically controlled by people? Researchers create the AI, and they control it. There is no doubt about that.

The indirect question is, therefore, should be, do you need an Institutional Control over the researchers who are paid to create AI?

HOWEVER, MIND YOU, THAT ...

"Pull the plug off" and there will be no AI. :-)

This will send the "institutional control" to cycle the dynamos in order to create electricity so to control the creation of AI....

I think that these artificially imposed questions to impede innovation and create false threats within innovative researchers in the society.

Good luck with your questions, Dariusz Prokopowicz

Viara Van Raad ,

To address some of your points

a) Along the same lines, I could argue that the answer you have given is also not stated clearly.

b) While I do not agree with the open letter, I do disagree with the reckless use of ChatGPT by scientist who should know better. Your point on "Pull the plug off" is also wishful thinking at best and does not make a concise point. Since, anyone with a powerful enough laptop can implement LLAMA or other LLM. Transformers are also easy enough to configure and implement nowadays with the appropriate framework and some imagination.

c) It is not funny (as in the 'pull the plug' comment) how reckless release of LLMs and chatbots can lead to suicide[1] leaving two children without a father. Accountability of researchers and businesses is necessary. It is not a question of "impede innovation and create false threats" but of responsible use of a technology. If suicide is a false threats, then I am in the wrong planet.

d) It is also not funny how scientists cut and paste ChatGPTs answer without thinking how that answer was generated and if "real thought" went into it. Statistical patterns of LLMs are meant to be just that and are not equivalent to causation or logical reasoning. Scientist must learn to know better than this.

References

[1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-life-after-an-ai-chatbot-encouraged-him-to-sacrifice-himself-to-stop-climate-