> China has not known freedom for some time, but citizens of the United States have a long experience of it.
Lol?
The AI Apocalypse Is Here
31–40 of 54 posts
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? To is basically true that someone will. 8+ billion humans on earth, someone will keep working. Kinda like nuclear bombs or similar.
> Kinda like nuclear bombs or similar. ...and AI progress is actually a much more difficult thing to control than nuclear proliferation... Unlike nuclear bombs there is no rare difficult-to-process ingredient which you can practically limit the supply of, unless you are willing to retroactively outlaw computing devices broadly (after we have spent decades weaving them into the fabric of most people's day to day lives…
Just because we can't stop it completely doesn't mean we can drastically slow it down: make it illegal to study to be an AI researcher, to train someone to be a researcher, to seek investment for AI development, to invest in AI development, to sell services based on AI models other than the ones that already exist, to publish new findings about AI.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? To is basically true that someone will. 8+ billion humans on earth, someone will keep working. Kinda like nuclear bombs or similar.
I guess then if Iran doesn't bomb all the data centres, somebody else will do it? That does seem like a path forward, pity about the wasted resources that could have gone toward more pressing matters like climate.
I can't tell if you're trying to make a real point or not.
Are you just angry and writing nonsensical words? Do you actually think that Iran can blow up a meaningful portion of the data centers in the world?
Do you think someone else will actually do it?
That doesn't seem very likely to me, whereas someone else stepping up to run openai or anthropic does seem very likely.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#34>China has not known freedom for some time, but citizens of the United States have a long experience of it. One of those American beliefs presented without evidence because it’s just so obviously true, but what the fuck does this even mean? Exactly how are Americans more free?
It's not just an American belief. USA has no MSS equivalent for starters. They don't have a Great Firewall. One can make their own independent party in the US (winning is a different story, tho). And so on.
And that's just in recent times, the PRC had it worse then.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#35> Given what we have already seen of AI, we can be confident that its widespread adoption will create a less free society, a less virtuous people, and a degraded culture. I think this claim needs stronger evidence than "we can be confident".
He’s basically making the same speculative-futurist argument as the AI boosters, just with the sign reversed: “imagine what this will eventually do” is doing nearly all the work.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#36> China has not known freedom for some time, but citizens of the United States have a long experience of it. Lol?
- i dont understand why they drag china every single time
- "ChInA HaS No FrEeDoM....CiTiZeNs ArE OpPrEsSeD...." they are doing just fine, they are doing better than your american counterparts in many ways
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#37> China has not known freedom for some time, but citizens of the United States have a long experience of it.
This sort of statements are too broad and impossible to falsify. Freedom in what context? Political? Societal? Also can you have freedom or not have freedom? Is freedom a binary state?
Freedom in many countries is a scale, you are free to do this or that but not too much of it and not to everyone.
Furthermore, even in countries that are deemed to have greater freedom than others, they are still countless things that are banned so again freedom is really in the eye of the beholder.
> the escalating calls for an international treaty to ban superintelligence
There is 0 chance of that happening since we can't even define what intelligence is never mind superintelligence. A model can be great at coding software while hopelessly incapable at solving trivial things like when there was the whole "strawberry" spelling debacle not long ago.
> In other words, the present AI resistance speaks almost entirely of preventing risks still to come.
And that is exactly why this sort of effort is not going to succeed. If you are looking to ban or regulate things that don't pose a threat then what are we even doing here?
We have always started by allowing things and then restricting them when harm had been proven. Not the other way around.
Changing how things work and preemptively banning or regulating things in advance because of the harm that could result without clear evidence is opening the Pandora's box where a bunch of bureaucrats decide what citizens should or should not do based on vibes. Hardly a model to follow.
> Given what we have already seen of AI, we can be confident that its widespread adoption will create a less free society, a less virtuous people, and a degraded culture.
And this is supported by evidence I imagine? "we can be confident" is nothing but vibes. No sources, no peer-reviewed studies, just opinions. Is this supposed to be a good argument in favor of regulating AI because if it is then it's preposterous.
If you think AI is bad and will create chaos, fine, prove it then. And even if you could prove it, it certainly would not be a binary thing. AI is a tool that can be used in many ways. Some bad, some good.
> So far, opponents of AI have overwhelmingly focused on predicting its economic effects.
And we are supposed once again to trust these people because of what? Their track records? Experienced economists have trouble predicting what the global economy will look like 5 years from now but we are supposed to simply accept that the conclusion of the people who are for regulating and/or banning AI are infallible. That makes 0 sense.
At the moment the effect of AI is a known unknown. We do not know what it will do to the economy 5 years from now. Maybe it will destroy entire parts of the global economy, maybe it will create more opportunities in many industries. If we do not know then the best course of action and is to wait and see what happens before jumping the gun.
> It is—already—a moral and cosmological cataclysm
And the superlatives keep on coming...
I stopped reading after that. This article is not serious. We can criticize AI without using terms such as the ones above.
The author also never presents who "the people who oppose AI " are and what they really want. Are they governments? NGOs? Groups or citizens? We don't know.
I don't like the people who preach that AI is going to solve all our problems but the author is going in the complete opposite direction and using the same vibes to support their argument and that really does not help his case.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#38>China has not known freedom for some time, but citizens of the United States have a long experience of it. One of those American beliefs presented without evidence because it’s just so obviously true, but what the fuck does this even mean? Exactly how are Americans more free?
It's not just an American belief. USA has no MSS equivalent for starters. They don't have a Great Firewall. One can make their own independent party in the US (winning is a different story, tho). And so on. And that's just in recent times, the PRC had it worse then.
But you are cheery picking a few things while ignoring others.
In the US, you are free to buy a gun and walk around with it. In the EU you can't But if you ask a person from the EU, they will think that this "freedom to bear arms" does more harm than good in their eyes.
So who has more freedom here? The person who walks around with the gun or the person who can walk the streets with the freedom of knowing that guns are not allowed here.
Freedom is a sliding scale not a binary thing. Should you be free to marry your first cousin or children? Some freedom absolutist will tel you that governments shouldn't be able to tell you who you can marry but we can all agree that some freedoms need to be curtailed for the good of society.
Now you can argue that China is less free when it comes to political matters and that would be fine except the problem in this case is that the author simply expressed a very broad opinion which makes it impossible to falsify.
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#39The question to Sam and Dario would be: if the thing you are building is going do displace humanity, then why are you building it?
Well, they are scammers
Re: The AI Apocalypse Is Here
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is no excuse whatsoever. It turns out that immoral actions don't become acceptable if you go "someone else would do it if I didn't". Perhaps they would, but you're still a bad person if you do the bad thing.
But it does become moral if someone else would do it worse . Some even say you have a moral obligation to do it in that case.
Well no, that just makes one a liar and a coward.