Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "Sam Altman: OpenAI CEO on GPT-4, ChatGPT, and the Future of AI | Lex Fridman Podcast #367" video.

As a software developer/architect, I'm looking forward for the time where I can make only architectural decisions and AI can play the role of code monkey that implements the functions/methods for my design. I'd definitely do code review for every single line that the AI emits but I have no need to be the one that writes every line of code as long as the AI can emit code of high enough quality. I'm already trusting my collegues to write code and it rarely ends up the same I would have written but as long as it's readable, understandable and executes with high enough runtime performance, I'll accept the code. That said, I do complete code review for the code of my human collegues, too. And they verify my code, too.
4
I'm a software developer (44m) that used to think about 5 years ago that we'll have AGI around year 2050 but I'm currently thinking we'll have human level AGI (IQ 100) around year 2030. I'm currently thinking that around year 2050 we'll have superhuman AGI that can do everything better than any human being. That is, a single AGI system can do philosophy, mathematics, compose music, create movies, design new robots, write new software and control ships, airplanes or fighter jets better than the top of the top people of each respective field. And as a corollary, it will create better improvements to itself than any group of humans could do. I truly believe that humans are a boot routine for a superhuman AI. And I think it's a good thing as a whole because I see only science, culture and art as the final output of humankind. If superhuman AI is better for each those fields, we should build the superhuman AI to advance those fields.
3
2:22:20 I definitely agree with iterative progress but I hope GPT-4 were much more open. I think publishing the source code would be the best way forward but I understand that it seems risky move because there're also bad actors in the world. However, I think good people make the majority and bad party will fail similarly how bitcoin succeeds because majority of the miners are honest.
1
@alemz_music I don't believe AI would attack humans. I think we can agree that human intelligence is superior to bears, dogs, cats or even chimpanzee. Still we don't try to actively attack those entities. Humans have attacked some species and killed them to extinction for stupid reasons such as trophy hunting. Superhuman AI should be able to notice that symbiotic life with humans would be a better solution than declaring a war. And superhuman AI should be intelligent enough to not to start collecting trophy kills. Much bigger risk seems to be that superhuman AI can create such a great entertainment that humans will be entertained to extinction. Imagine totally real feeling VR system where everything is nicer and more gratifying that anything in real world. Would you see the possibility that humans would want to spend so much time there that they don't bother having physical sexual intercourse and actually raising children? Remember that full body VR system would allow you to enjoy all the best parts of sex and interacting with (virtual) children without any of the con-sides. It seems to me that people are selfish enough that many would entertain themselves in VR environment instead of doing the extra effort to do stuff in real world. (And I'm not talking about current VR experiences, something more akin to stuff in the movie Matrix, without the human battery stuff.) Note that superhuman AI doesn't really need to be afraid of humans attacking it. Are you afraid that chimpanzees or cats are suddenly going to take over and kill all the humans? Note that superhuman AI wouldn't even need to care about issues like global warming – that's a problem for humans only and if humans decided to take no action, superhuman AI doesn't need to enforce it either. Even if it were the best for humankind.
1
@graye2799 Did you understand what I was writing? The biggest threat is social problems – when (not if) AI can do all jobs better than humans, what do you think humans are going to do? That's a HUGE problem and it seems no country has done anything to deal with the issue. And that's going to happen within 10–30 years so we should be feeling hurry. I'm expecting to see lots of social issues because of AI taking care of all the stuff we often spend most of our days. I see Universal Basic Income (UBI) as the only practical long term solution but politicians haven't yet figured that out in any country.
1
2:11:00 I think representing the AI as a creature might be good for the UI but it should be clearly explained to the users that its metaphorical truth: it's the repsentation that's easy to understand and works for practical purposes but it's factually false. Religions are a great example of people taking a metaphorical truth and mistaking it with facts and actual truths.
1
@f7y8u9ugf I think I'm (still) better communicating with non-developers to figure out what's actually needed. I've communicated enough with non-developers to know that "normal people" cannot formulate their needs or ideas clearly and figuring that out and filling in blanks from the context (real world) still seems too hard to do for an AI. I do believe that software architects will be replaced by AI in the long run but I would assume that's nearly the last occupations that AI can successfully do. Human psychology is a field in general that will be hard to tackle with the current AI designs. However, the rules for psychology are less strict than for writing software so "good enough" may be easier to achieve there. There are still too many unknowns to say anything for sure, though.
1