211–220 of 405 posts
Government knows that random people having the ability to use "AI" without their control and oversight reduces their ever expanding reach. As the article demonstrates, the groundwork is already being laid by these "think tanks" to prevent a repeat of Llama 2. We truly need an AI Stallman. FOSS AI models need to become a movement, like the push for a FOSS UNIX became in the 80s and 90s. Sadly when I wrote to Stallman…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is simply no indication that any of the AI anyone is currently working on could possibly be dangerous in any way (other than having an impact on society in terms of fake news, jobs etc.). We are very far from that. In any case, it would not be a matter of banning AI research (much of which can be summarised in a single book) but of banning data collection or access and more importantly of banning improvements t…
To be clear: I am in favor of a fine based bounty system, not a black and white ban. Bans are not going to work, for all of the reasons others have already cited. You have to change the game theory of improving AI in a capitalistic marketplace to have any hope of a significant, global cooling effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced the onus should be on one side to prove why something isn't an existential risk. We don't start with an assumption that something is world-ending about anything else; we generally need to see a plausibly worked-through example of how the world ends, using technology we can all broadly agree exists/will shortly exist. If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern…
AI safety / x-risk folks have in fact made extensive and detailed arguments. Occasionally, folks arguing against them rise to the same standard. But most of the arguments against AI safety look a lot more like name-calling and derision: "nuh-uh, that's sci-fi and unrealistic (mic drop)". That's not a counterargument. > If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behavi…
Can you provide examples? I have not seen any, other than philosophical hand waving. Remember, the parent poster of your post was asking for a specific path to destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies declare that they are trying to build better AI, and the ultimately purpose is AGI. Both the definition of AGI given by the company and by AI aliment/safety researchers is similar. AI safety people trust it is dangerous. let me go continue using a nuclear bomb as a metaphor. if we don't know whether building nuclear bomb is possible, but some companies declare they have existing progress on creating this ne…
They declare that - but I could also declare I'm trying to build a nuclear bomb (n.b. I'm not). Whether people are likely to try and stop me, or try and apply some legal non-proliferation framework, is partly influenced by whether they believe what I'm claiming is realistic (it's not - I have a workshop, but no fissile material). Nobody gets too worried about me doing something which would be awful, but the general c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies declare that they are trying to build better AI, and the ultimately purpose is AGI. Both the definition of AGI given by the company and by AI aliment/safety researchers is similar. AI safety people trust it is dangerous. let me go continue using a nuclear bomb as a metaphor. if we don't know whether building nuclear bomb is possible, but some companies declare they have existing progress on creating this ne…
They declare that - but I could also declare I'm trying to build a nuclear bomb (n.b. I'm not). Whether people are likely to try and stop me, or try and apply some legal non-proliferation framework, is partly influenced by whether they believe what I'm claiming is realistic (it's not - I have a workshop, but no fissile material). Nobody gets too worried about me doing something which would be awful, but the general c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced the onus should be on one side to prove why something isn't an existential risk. We don't start with an assumption that something is world-ending about anything else; we generally need to see a plausibly worked-through example of how the world ends, using technology we can all broadly agree exists/will shortly exist. If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern…
AI safety / x-risk folks have in fact made extensive and detailed arguments. Occasionally, folks arguing against them rise to the same standard. But most of the arguments against AI safety look a lot more like name-calling and derision: "nuh-uh, that's sci-fi and unrealistic (mic drop)". That's not a counterargument. > If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behavi…
AI has also been used, and many countries have AI. See how this is different from nuclear weapons?
There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…
Training on publicly available data is the new norm.
Governments know that if they forbid it in their jurisdiction, they will fall behind the govs that don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only works if all governments cooperate sincerely to this goal. Not gonna work. Everyone will develop in secret. Have we been able to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Or any motivated country for that matter.
The US could unilaterally impose this by allowing the bounties to be charged even on people who aren't US citizens. Evil people do exist in the world, who would be happy to get in on that action. Or one could use honey instead of vinegar: Offer a fast track to US citizenship to any proven AI expert who agrees to move and renounce the trade for good. Personally I think this goal is much more likely to work. It's all a…
Incentivizing people to become AI experts as a means to US citizenship.
AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…
> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…
AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…
It's way too late to ban any of this. How do you propose to make that work? That would be like banning all "malicious software", it's a preposterous idea when you even begin to think about the practical side of it. And where do you draw the line? Is my XGBoost model "AI", or are we only banning generative AI? Is a Markov chain "generative AI"?
If you banned proprietary software, this would seem a lot more practical.