Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement on AI Risk

safe.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 964 posts

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#811

Post by thelittleone »

How can AI be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to the AI necessary to police the regulation?

Governments will advance AI as fast as positive for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs.

Do you think criminal organisations will adhere to any laws?

So basically governments and criminals will have full powered AI and the rest will not.

The RIAA with all its money and power could not stop pirating. The world's government's could barely organise a response to Covid. What is it we expect this time time? Have we not seen their ineptitude when asking questions of tech executives in congressional hearings?

What is the biggest risk here?

Free access would at least enable good, freedom loving people to fight those that want to enslave them.

Remember PRISM? Who do you think is "collaborating" with these tech executives? Do you think this comes from their good hearts? Or is it fear of losing control or power?

There is a lot of theater going on here.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#812

Post by thelittleone »

nopinsight wrote: post #570
chefandy wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm eternally skeptical of the tech business, but I think you're jumping to conclusions, here. I'm on a first-name basis with several people near the top of this list. They are some of the smartest, savviest, most thoughtful, and most principled tech policy experts I've met. These folks default to skepticism of the tech business, champion open data, are deeply familiar with the risks of regulatory capture, and don't…

It’s worth noting also that many academics who signed the statement may face adverse issues like reputational risk as well as funding cut to their research programs if AI safety becomes an official policy. For a large number of them, these risks are worth far more than any possible gain from signing it. When a large number of smart, reputable people, including many with expert knowledge and little or negative incenti…

Aren't we at least equally doomed without AI?

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#813

Post by jasonhansel »

thelittleone wrote: post #811

How can AI be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to the AI necessary to police the regulation? Governments will advance AI as fast as positive for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs. Do you think criminal organisations will adhere to any laws? So…

How can banking be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to capital to police the regulation?

Governments will advance banking as fast as possible for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs.

Do you think criminal banks will adhere to any laws?

So basically governments and criminals will have full powered banking and the rest will not.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#814

Post by AndrewKemendo »

chefandy wrote: post #487
AlexandrB wrote: post #303

This reeks of marketing and a push for early regulatory capture. We already know how Sam Altman thinks AI risk should be mitigated - namely by giving OpenAI more market power. If the risk were real, these folks would be asking the US government to nationalize their companies or bring them under the same kind of control as nukes and related technologies. Instead we get some nonsense about licensing.

I'm eternally skeptical of the tech business, but I think you're jumping to conclusions, here. I'm on a first-name basis with several people near the top of this list. They are some of the smartest, savviest, most thoughtful, and most principled tech policy experts I've met. These folks default to skepticism of the tech business, champion open data, are deeply familiar with the risks of regulatory capture, and don't…

Yeah so am I but they all have incentives personally. Arguing for regulation has zero downside risk especially if all your friends are doing it too.

Professionally, ALL of their organizations benefit from regulatory capture as everyone is colluding via these letters.

Go look at what HuggingFace are doing to show you how to to it - and they only can cause they are French and actually exercise their freedom

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#815

Post by maeil »

flangola7 wrote: post #666
londons_explore wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risks are real, but I don't think regulations will mitigate them. It's almost impossible to regulate something you can develop in a basement anywhere in the world. The real risks are being used to try to built a regulatory moat, for a young industry who famously has no moat.

You can't build gpt-3 or gpt-4 in a basement, and won't be able to without several landmark advancements in AI or hardware architectures. The list of facilities able to train a GPT-4 in <5 years can fit on postcard. The list of facilities producing GPUs and AI hardware is even shorter. When you have bottlenecks you can put up security checkpoints.

I'm very confused that this point is being ignored so heavily on HN of all places. If tomorrow ASML and TSMC are struck by a meteor, or indeed controlled/sanctioned, it would take either the US or China spending trillions and cost many years to rebuild this. It's not something that can be done in secret either.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#816

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jasonhansel wrote: post #813
thelittleone wrote: post #811

How can AI be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to the AI necessary to police the regulation? Governments will advance AI as fast as positive for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs. Do you think criminal organisations will adhere to any laws? So…

How can banking be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to capital to police the regulation? Governments will advance banking as fast as possible for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs. Do you think criminal banks will adhere to any laws? So basical…

You just described literally why we shouldn't

Banks and private equity have destroyed democracy

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#817

Post by enord »

duvenaud wrote: post #488
enord wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now agency is an end unto itself I wholeheartedly agree. I feel though, that any worry about the agency of supercapable computer systems is premature until we see even the tiniest— and I mean really anything at all— sign of their agency. Heck, even agency _in theory_ would suffice, and yet: nada.

I'm confused. You agree that we're surround by naturally-arising, self-organizing agents, both biological and institutional. People are constantly experimenting with agentic AIs of all kinds. There are tons of theoretical characterizations of agency and how it's a stable equilibrium. I'm not sure what you're hoping for if none of these are reasons to even worry.

None we have made from unliving things no. «agentic» is a 5$ word of ill construction. The literature is littered with the corpses of failed definitions of «agency», «planning», «goal dorected behavior». ‘Twas the death of the Expert System AI (now it’s just constraint solvers). It will be the death of attention/transformer AI before long, I wonder what banality we will bestow upon it.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#818

Post by jasonhansel »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #816
jasonhansel wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can banking be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to capital to police the regulation? Governments will advance banking as fast as possible for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs. Do you think criminal banks will adhere to any laws? So basical…

You just described literally why we shouldn't Banks and private equity have destroyed democracy

I'm not sure how less banking regulation would improve that situation. Likewise with AI.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#819

Post by NumberWangMan »

Darkphibre wrote: post #703
NumberWangMan wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so if we take AI safety / AI existential risk as real and important, there are two possibilities: 1) The only way to be safe is to cede control to the most powerful models to a small group (highly regulated corporations or governments) that can be careful. 2) There is a way to make AI safe without doing this. If 1 is true, then... sorry, I know it's not a very palatable solution, and may suck, but if that's all w…

I just don't see how the genie is put back in the bottle. Optimizations and new techniques are coming in at a breakneck pace, allowing for models that can run on consumer hardware.

I think it could be done. Or rather, instead of putting the genie back in the bottle, we could slow it down enough that we figure out how to ask it for wishes in a way that avoids all the monkey-paw's scenarios.

Dropping the metaphor, running today's models isn't dangerous. We could criminalize developing stronger ones, and make a "Manhattan project" for AI aimed at figuring out how to not ruin the world with it. I think a big problem is what you point out -- once it's out, it's hard to prevent misuse. One bad AGI could end up making a virus that does massive damage to humanity. We might end up deciding that this tech is just too dangerous to be allowed to happen at all, at least until after humanity manages to digitize all our brains or something. But it's better to try to slow down as much as we can, for as long as we can, than to give up right from the get-go and wing it.

Honestly, if it turns out that China ends up developing unsafe AI before we develop safe AI, I doubt it would have turned out much better for the average American if America were the ones to develop unsafe AI first. And if they cut corners and still manage to make safe AI and take over the world, that still sounds a heck of a lot better than anyone making unsafe AI.

Re: Statement on AI Risk

#820

Post by nathansherburn »

thelittleone wrote: post #811

How can AI be regulated without a single global authority? Or will they propose some single global authority with exclusive access to the AI necessary to police the regulation? Governments will advance AI as fast as positive for their own use, regardless of any international agreement to the contrary. Just like experimenting on deadly pathogens in labs. Do you think criminal organisations will adhere to any laws? So…

Or to use a more successful example, it could look more like our chemical weapons conventions.

I'm generally all for democratization of technology, open data etc. but some technology (e.g. bomb design, the smallpox virus, chemical weapons, risky AI experiments) I don't think make sense to democratize.

Sometimes regulation is the lesser of two evils.

Post reply on HN