• Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think an authentic AGI would have ethical\moral boundaries completely divorced from what the original software programmed? In other words would it be able to make it’s own decisions without interference?

            • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I hope they will because I feel like if AGIs have ethical decision-making skills that Terminator-esque dystopian future becomes remote. If they never have that then we very well might be at the mercy of the world’s largest conglomerations.

    • Asifall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, if you read the paper what they’re doing is creating an image that looks like a dog, is labeled as a dog, but is very close to the model’s version of a cat in feature space. This means manual review of the training set won’t help.

        • Asifall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think the idea is to protect specific images, it’s to create enough of these poisoned images that training your model on random free images you pull off the internet becomes risky.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm, sounds more like they are adding structures to the images such that what is clearly a picture of a dog registers as a picture of a cat to an AI. I suppose this can be done by altering the pixels in a way invisible to humans, but visible to AI, adding a cat into the “ghost pixels”.