231–240 of 873 posts
Can we stop labeling prominent AI researchers as “AI Godfather”? It’s so silly and barely truthful. The concept of AI has been around since Turing and if anyone deserves a title like “Father of AI” it’s him. LeCun is Chief AI Scientist at Meta. They can just leave it at that.
1. Private companies not instantly open sourcing things they've spent $100m+ on developing is not a cause for alarm
2. Regulatory capture is only bad because it shows that regulators can't be trusted. And regulations can change; they aren't set in stone after after being written.
3. Open source AI development is happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seize power via regulatory capture Not even a little bit. "Stop" is not regulatory capture. Some large AI companies are attempting to twist "stop" into "be careful, as only we can". The actual way to stop the existential risk is to stop. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1719777049576128542 > the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements "Stop" is not "licensing and reporting requ…
> "Stop" is not regulatory capture. "Stop" is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head. Unless your solution anticipates a planet wide GULAG system run by a global government your "stop" is infeasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The laws we have already cover malevolent and abusive uses of software applications. They don't. Or not nearly enough. Otherwise you wouldn't have automated racial profiling, en masse face recognition, credit and social scoring etc. And it's going to get worse. Because AI is infallible, right? Right?! That's why, among other thing, EU AI regulation has the following: - Foundation models have to be thoroughly docume…
AI not being allowed in high-risk applications is a bad idea, same for explicable in human terms (cannot do that now for human decisions anyway). The latter would kind of rule out any quantum computing, too, as the only real explanation there is through maths, not words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seize power via regulatory capture Not even a little bit. "Stop" is not regulatory capture. Some large AI companies are attempting to twist "stop" into "be careful, as only we can". The actual way to stop the existential risk is to stop. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1719777049576128542 > the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements "Stop" is not "licensing and reporting requ…
The fact that anyone may be taking Eliezer Yudkowsky seriously on this topic is mind-blowing to me. Simply mind-blowing. To imagine that anybody, including the UN, would have any power to collective put a stop to the development of AI globally is a laughable idea. The UN cannot agree to release a letter on Israel-Hamas, imagine policing the ENTIRE WORLD and shutting down AI development when necessary. We can't stop c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "doomer" arguments can be dismissed relatively easily by one logical consideration. In each country there is one group far more dangerous than any other. This group tends to have 'income' in the billions to hundreds of billions of dollars. And this money is exclusively directed towards finding new ways to kill people, destroy governments, and generally enable one country to forcibly impose their will on others, w…
This is true if and only if such a group actually exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "doomer" arguments can be dismissed relatively easily by one logical consideration. In each country there is one group far more dangerous than any other. This group tends to have 'income' in the billions to hundreds of billions of dollars. And this money is exclusively directed towards finding new ways to kill people, destroy governments, and generally enable one country to forcibly impose their will on others, w…
This is true if and only if such a group actually exists.
The way incumbents are attempting to seize power via regulatory capture, using "X-Risk" and fantastical claims of sudden human extinction is maybe one of the most cynical ploys in the history of tech so far. 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 male…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Stop" is not regulatory capture. "Stop" is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head. Unless your solution anticipates a planet wide GULAG system run by a global government your "stop" is infeasible.
That might be true but there's no way of knowing for sure. Planet wide gulag system(a colorful and a bit wrong name for prisons) already exists and is pretty aligned on topics like killing fellow humans as a result of conscious, deliberate action. I find Max Tegmark's argument pretty convincing. We seem to agree to "STOP" on things like genetically modifying ourselves at conception or birth or whatever to gain X or Y…