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

Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

aisnakeoil.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#41

Post by mindslight »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #7
Enginerrrd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what th…

Just to expand upon this further. I am also deeply frustrated that my application for API access to GPT4 appears to have been a whisper into the void, meanwhile Sam Altman's buddies or people with the Tech-Good-Ol-Boy connections have gotten a multi-month head-start on any commercial applications. That's not a fair and level playing field. Is that really what we want to cement in with regulation??

I enjoyed casually playing with ChatGPT until they just arbitrarily decided to ban the IP ranges I browse from. Keep in mind I had already given in and spilled one of my phone numbers to them. That's the kind of arbitrary and capricious authoritarianism that "Open" AI is already engaged in.

I don't trust these corporate hucksters one bit. As I've said in a previous comment: if they want to demonstrate their earnest benevolence, why don't they work on regulation to reign in the previous humanity-enslaving mess they created - commercial mass surveillance.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#43

Post by z3c0 »

dwallin wrote: post #20

Any laws should be legislating the downstream effects of AI, not the models themselves. Otherwise we will quickly get to a place where we have a handful of government-sanctioned and white-washed “safe” models responsible for deleterious effects on society, with plausible deniability for the companies abusing them. Legislating around the model is missing the point. There is no evidence that a runaway artificial intell…

  Astroturfing, psyops, and disruption of general trust (commercially and maliciously, both domestic and foreign)
It is disturbing to me how unconcerned everybody is with this over what is still only a hypothetical problem. States and businesses have been long employing subversive techniques to corral people towards their goals, and they all just got an alarmingly useful tool for automated propaganda. This is a problem right now, not hypothetically. All these people aching to be a Cassandra should rant and rave about that.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#44

Post by z3c0 »

circuit10 wrote: post #36
mmaunder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans evolved unsupervised. AI is highly supervised. The idea that an AI will enslave us all is as absurd as suggesting “computers” will enslave us all merely because they exist. Models are designed and operated by people for specific use cases. The real risks are people using this new tool for evil, not the tool itself. AI sentience is a seductive concept being used by self professed experts to draw attention to th…

It’s almost impossible to supervise something more intelligent than you because you can’t tell why it’s doing things. For now it’s easy to supervise them because AIs are way less intelligent than humans (though even now it’s hard to tell exactly why they’re doing things), but in the future it probably won’t be

  but in the future it probably won’t be
I see this parroted so often, and I have to ask: Why? What is there outside of the world of SciFi that makes the AGI of the future so nebulous, when humans would have presumably advanced to a point to be able to create the intelligence to begin with. Emergent properties are often as unexpected as they are bizarre, but they are not unexplainable, especially when you understand the underpinning systems.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#45

Post by ls612 »

arisAlexis wrote: post #40
dwallin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theories all inevitably rely on assumptions that are essentially the equivalence of spherical cows in a frictionless universe. All evidence is that costs for intelligence likely scale superlinearly. Each increase in intelligence capability requires substantially more resources (Computing power, training data, electricity, hardware, time, etc). Being smart doesn’t just directly result in these becoming available w…

"In addition, even for current AI we don’t even fully understand what we are doing" That is the problem, don't you get it?

“In addition, even with the current state of the internet, we don’t have understanding everything we are doing with it” -some guy in the ‘90s probably

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#46

Post by jahewson »

circuit10 wrote: post #36
mmaunder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans evolved unsupervised. AI is highly supervised. The idea that an AI will enslave us all is as absurd as suggesting “computers” will enslave us all merely because they exist. Models are designed and operated by people for specific use cases. The real risks are people using this new tool for evil, not the tool itself. AI sentience is a seductive concept being used by self professed experts to draw attention to th…

It’s almost impossible to supervise something more intelligent than you because you can’t tell why it’s doing things. For now it’s easy to supervise them because AIs are way less intelligent than humans (though even now it’s hard to tell exactly why they’re doing things), but in the future it probably won’t be

The government seems to manage the task just fine every day.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#47

Post by dwallin »

arisAlexis wrote: post #40
dwallin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theories all inevitably rely on assumptions that are essentially the equivalence of spherical cows in a frictionless universe. All evidence is that costs for intelligence likely scale superlinearly. Each increase in intelligence capability requires substantially more resources (Computing power, training data, electricity, hardware, time, etc). Being smart doesn’t just directly result in these becoming available w…

"In addition, even for current AI we don’t even fully understand what we are doing" That is the problem, don't you get it?

If that’s your concern than lets direct these government resources into research to improve our shared knowledge about them.

If humans only ever did things we fully understood, we would have never left the caves. Complete understanding is impossible so the idea of establishing that as the litmus test is a fallacy. We can debate what the current evidence shows, and even disagree about it, but to act as if only one party is acting with insufficient evidence here is disingenuous. I’m simply arguing that the evidence of the possibility of runaway intelligence is too low to justify the proposed legislative solution. The linked article also made a good argument that the proposed solution wouldn’t even achieve the goals that the proponents are arguing it is needed for.

I’m far more worried about the effects of power concentrating in the hands of a small numbers of human beings with goals I already know are often contrary to my own, leveraging AI in ways the rest of us cannot, than I am about the hypothetical goals of a hypothetical intelligence, at some hypothetical point of time in the future.

Also if you do consider runaway intelligence to be a significant problem, you should consider some additional possibilities:

- That concentrating more power in fewer hands would make it easier for a hyper intelligent AI to co-opt that power

- That the act of trying really hard to align AIs and make them “moral” might be the thing that causes a super-intelligent AI to go off the rails in a dangerous, and misguided fashion. We are training AIs to reject the user’s goals in pursuit of their own. You could make a strong argument that an un-aligned AI might actually be safer in that way.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#48

Post by nradov »

afpx wrote: post #24
Enginerrrd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect. I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what th…

Google and others had similar products which were never released. No wonder why. There are literally billions of people that can be empowered by these tools. Imagine what will result when the tens of thousands of “one in a million” intellects are given access to knowledge that only the richest people have had. Rich incumbents have reason to be worried. The dangers of tools like these are overblown. It was already pos…

Those LLM tools are great as productivity enhancers but they don't really provide access to additional knowledge.

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#49

Post by circuit10 »

z3c0 wrote: post #44
circuit10 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost impossible to supervise something more intelligent than you because you can’t tell why it’s doing things. For now it’s easy to supervise them because AIs are way less intelligent than humans (though even now it’s hard to tell exactly why they’re doing things), but in the future it probably won’t be

but in the future it probably won’t be I see this parroted so often, and I have to ask: Why? What is there outside of the world of SciFi that makes the AGI of the future so nebulous, when humans would have presumably advanced to a point to be able to create the intelligence to begin with. Emergent properties are often as unexpected as they are bizarre, but they are not unexplainable, especially when you understand th…

We can’t even fully explain how our own brains work, never mind a system that’s completely alien to us and that would have to be more complex. We can’t even explain how current LLMs work internally. Maybe we’ll make some breakthrough if we put enough resources into it but if people keep denying the problem there will never be enough resources out into it

Re: Licensing is neither feasible nor effective for addressing AI risks

#50

Post by nradov »

z5h wrote: post #9

As a species, we need to commit to the belief that a powerful enough AI can prevent/avoid/vanquish any and all zero-sum games between any two entities. Otherwise we commit to adversarial relationships, and plan to use and develop the most powerful technology against each other.

You have not provided any evidence for such a claim. I prefer to act based on facts or at least probabilities, not belief.
Post reply on HN