31–40 of 873 posts
That's the thing with AI. It's so dangerous it could destroy us all. P(doom)=0.3. Anyway, that's why we're working on much large LLMs. It's important that we do this research and expand the size of the LLMs because a larger LLM could destroy us all. Listen, everyone cosplays as doomers here because it's stylish right now. But they're all trying to make this thing they think is suicide. Is this a suicide cult? No. It'…
My recommendation for regulation would be to make closed & cloud-hosted AI illegal. Architecture, training data and weights should always be available, and people should only be allowed to use AI on their local machine (which might be as powerful as possible).
Yeah, it is a true risk. What happens when people start making their voting decisions with AI, asking who to vote? Nothing wrong with that per se, but it gives an ultimate power to the company who developed and hosts the AI, which means the end of democracy. My recommendation for regulation would be to make closed & cloud-hosted AI illegal. Architecture, training data and weights should always be available, and peopl…
It's too late for monopolizing large language models. The technology for making them is known and the cost keeps coming down. There are things to worry about, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
Training is still very expensive.. and if it becomes cheaper, then a next-gen model with better performance will be expensive again. It may be very hard to train cutting edge models if you only have consumer hardware
Open source is one of our greatest gifts, and the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements (which will undoubtedly become more strict) is absurd.
The laws we have already cover malevolent and abusive uses of software applications.
Yeah, it is a true risk. What happens when people start making their voting decisions with AI, asking who to vote? Nothing wrong with that per se, but it gives an ultimate power to the company who developed and hosts the AI, which means the end of democracy. My recommendation for regulation would be to make closed & cloud-hosted AI illegal. Architecture, training data and weights should always be available, and peopl…
This would make AI usage restricted to those who can afford a beefy PC, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, the strong market for virtual goods and the existence of significant virtual economies[1] like those found in Roblox and Second Life lead me to believe that markets can and will always exist, regardless of how far we progress into and beyond post-scarcity (assuming humanity persists in its current form and consumption preferences remain stable). I'm less certain about the capitalist model in particular, but it to…
We are already in a post-scarcity world, we have been for decades. The problem is inequalities and the inefficiency of how we use the resources, it doesn't look like we'll change that soon, sadly. I'm more prone to think that in a "virtual" economy we'll still have miserable workers to empty the chamber-pots of the lucky ones who are plugged in the new world.
It's only a post-scarcity world if you define scarcity by absence of enough resources to satisfy the bare-minimum required for existence. People don't want to live at the subsistence level, and we're not evenly remotely close to having enough resources to satisfy everybody's wants.
The moat he describes the one-percenters might aquire is government regulation. Creating an environment where only an exclusive club of companies is able to work on AI. Is that possible? Has that happened in any other industry? I can imagine it happening in a single country. But wouldn't research route around that country then? How is the situation in Europe, China, India, Canada, Japan ... ?
It's absolutely happened to the nuclear weapons industry. And Big AI is lobbying for the government to treat AI development the same way it treats nuclear proliferation.
some speculators say we'll enter an age of abundance and money wont matter nearly as much (or at all) but if thats the case, how do businesses transition from their current state of profit over everything into money is not important? I see it as much more likely that things become monopolized instead
Eh, the strong market for virtual goods and the existence of significant virtual economies[1] like those found in Roblox and Second Life lead me to believe that markets can and will always exist, regardless of how far we progress into and beyond post-scarcity (assuming humanity persists in its current form and consumption preferences remain stable). I'm less certain about the capitalist model in particular, but it to…
Is true because if one company creates something more powerful than what military can achieve, why would it not wan to overtake its powers?
I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the military can unplug some computers.