Bengio et al.'s proposal states that research breakthroughs are needed to solve some of today's technical challenges in creating AI with safe and ethical objectives.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 2023-10-26. True: the Bengio et al. proposal states, in substance, that research breakthroughs are needed to solve some current technical challenges in building AI with safe and ethical objectives, e.g. language saying such challenges cannot be solved simply by scaling or with existing methods. Mostly true: the paper makes this point, but in somewhat different wording or scope, e.g. it covers safety but not ethics explicitly. Mixed: the paper calls for more safety research but does not clearly say that breakthroughs are needed. Mostly false: the paper only touches on the theme, and Marcus's 'echo' overstates it. False: the paper contains no such statement or says the opposite.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (3)
-
E1 Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress arXiv (authors: Bengio et al.) · 15 September 2023
“There are many open technical challenges in ensuring the safety and ethical use of generalist, autonomous AI systems. Unlike advancing AI capabilities, these challenges cannot be addressed by simply using more computing power to train bigger models.”
-
E2 Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress arXiv (authors: Bengio et al.) · 15 September 2023
“A first set of R&D areas needs breakthroughs to enable reliably safe AI.”
-
E3 Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress arXiv (authors: Bengio et al.) · 15 September 2023
“In some cases, leaps of progress may be needed; we thus do not know if technical work can fundamentally solve these challenges in time.”
Reasoning
The Bengio et al. paper says there are open technical challenges in ensuring the safety and ethical use of generalist, autonomous AI systems, and that these cannot be addressed simply by using more computing power to train bigger models (E1). It also says that a first set of R&D areas needs breakthroughs to enable reliably safe AI (E2), and that leaps of progress may be needed in some cases (E3). Together these state in substance that breakthroughs are needed for current safety and ethics challenges, which meets the 'true' criterion.
Cite this claim
Gary Marcus, “Bengio et al.'s proposal states that research breakthroughs are needed to solve some of today's technical challenges in creating AI with safe and ethical objectives.” (said 26 October 2023). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_37c8e2357083, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_37c8e2357083
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Gary Marcus
-
Mostly true
“Even this was still a mix of euphemism (“attacks” were called “interactions”) and partial disclosure.”
OpenAI's latest account called attacks "interactions" and only partially disclosed what happened.
-
Mostly true
“It didn’t just attack a German web server.”
-
Resolved true
“It didn’t just attack Australia’s government servers.”
-
Mostly true
“So with LLMs, people do things like put stuff in a system prompt, and they can’t get systems with the system prompts to follow them.”
People put instructions in LLM system prompts but cannot get the systems to follow them.
-
Mostly true
“a just-published technique shows that current LLMs can be jailbroken quickly, and automatically.”
A newly published technique shows that current LLMs can be jailbroken quickly and automatically.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.