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

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 573 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#261

Post by RandomLensman »

kanzure wrote: post #252
RandomLensman wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds highly speculative then, i.e., the biology could never work out, no?

It depends on what you consider to be speculative. It's certainly not a product available to the mass consumer market, if that's what you mean. But that's also kind of an uninteresting fact, right? "Synthetic genomes unveil the effects of synonymous recoding" https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.16.599206v1 "Probing the limits of genetic recoding using multi-omics-guided evolution" https://www.nature.com/a…

Speculative whether it could be done with humans without severe side effects that would make it useless/pointless.

Is it a product available to humans at all?

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#262

Post by jorisw »

hn_submit wrote: post #246
mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

It's fairly easy to cure cancer by repairing DNA, but Big Pharma isn't interested because they can't patent it. They want to sell us some kind of "miracle cure" medicine that earns them trillions. The future is being held back by profit motives.

[citation needed]

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#263

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

eloisius wrote: post #168
vrganj wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an ideological thing. (We just had a conversation about ideology actually, remember?) Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers mea…

If they had AGI, why would they need consumers anymore? Just use your drone army to secure all natural resources and produce whatever you need for yourself. Other humans are just pets.

If AGI had a drone army, why would it need them?

Can't help wondering if they've really thought this through.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#264

Post by patcon »

kilpikaarna wrote: post #32

> I think it is fundamentally a crisis of trust. I think that ordinary people don’t trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over. [...] > I don’t think that a glitzy marketing campaign with a positive spin (which some have advocated that Anthropic do) is the way to win back that trust — at this point, saying that AI will cure cancer is mo…

> ordinary people [...] always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over

Anything big enough always is, no? The next scale of order in the hierarchy starts concerned itself with what's good for it, at the expense of the smaller parts.

The fact that government is like a giant organization that everyone lives in, the fact that it mostly doesn't fuck us all over in terrible ways, that's a testament to the amazing alignment of regulation and law imho

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#265

Post by Yizahi »

hn_submit wrote: post #246
mhaberl wrote: post #213

> We are however doing our best to fix this: Anthropic is ramping up its efforts very quickly in biology and medicine, and we hope to have incredible results in the coming years and some early glimmers in the coming months. When we’ve actually accomplished something real, the whole world will hear about it, as loudly as possible, you have my word on that. 1. He is giving his word that if he cures cancer, he will brag…

It's fairly easy to cure cancer by repairing DNA, but Big Pharma isn't interested because they can't patent it. They want to sell us some kind of "miracle cure" medicine that earns them trillions. The future is being held back by profit motives.

a) they can and will patent it, because in the end it will be same tools "bIg pHormA" uses today for all kinds of tasks. b) they are financially and subjectively interested in developing said tools to combat cancer even if they will be cloned and sold in parallel way cheaper than original. Because - 1) it would be immensely profitable on it's own, cancer is one the most common ailments, 2) post-cancer treatments are bringing in fortunes to pharma companies, because practically any cancer survivor is then locked on some medicine for life, 3) the success story alone, putting for example the most hated person in the world on a covers of literally every magazine and newspaper with a list of honorifics, awards and titles is incredibly enticing to every sociopathic CEO, 4) and as I said, not even generics or lack of crazy long patents can stop a company from becoming gold plated. I can go buy Ozempic generic for a fraction of a cost legally in a nearest apothecary, Novo is still The richest corpo in Europe anyway.

tl;dr - there is no conspiracy. It's just just hard.

PS: correction - not generics, but variants of Ozempic. But the point still stands.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#266

Post by demibabs »

Loughla wrote: post #239
bko wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, cancer research charities are some of the most well funded on this planet Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I think charities exist to exist. They don't have a strong incentive to actually deliver on their mission. Everyone at the org may be fully bought it and obviously want to cure cancer, but as an organization it would fail to deliver on the promise. Like most organisms, their actual purpose is to continue t…

I'm the opposite. I think publicly funded organizations will be the ones to come up with the cure. My reasoning is this; any company that is going to find a cure for cancer probably already has divisions that work on treating cancer. If the cure isn't more profitable than the treatment, there is every incentive to suppress the cure.

I don’t think it works like that.

If you can find and patent a cure to cancer, you can charge whatever you want for it, at least in the US. I don’t think profit would be an issue.

And even if ending chemotherapy would discourage the incumbents, smaller companies would love the opportunity to kill them.

For example, Polaroid didn’t want to embrace digital cameras since they made tons of money selling physical film. But all the smaller camera companies didn’t care, since they weren’t benefiting from that and wanted to just take Polaroid’s market share. And that’s why digital cameras took off regardless.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#267

Post by a2ff6eeb0 »

vrganj wrote: post #251
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a choice we have, unless you want to figure out a global AI ban treaty. AI will make human thought economically useless. In the new economy, the one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership.

> The one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership. This is correct. But we don't need to ban AI to avoid the permanent underclass nightmare. It's time for the means of production to be owned communally. It's either a cybersocialist utopia or a neofeudalist dystopia. Rosa Luxemburg formulated it pretty well more than a hundred years ago: Socialism or Barbarism! .

What kind of political leverage do the useless have? This isn't a realistically sustainable outcome.

Today, people have leverage because removing them has real economic consequences. With AI, we need to be on the useful side of the divide to have any leverage.

And then we'd better hope AI has respect for property rights.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#268

Post by colingauvin »

kanzure wrote: post #217
fnord123 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will cure virus.

> We will cure virus. It is possible to prevent most viruses by recoding the human genome (requires embryo engineering or pre-embryo engineering) to use alternate codons that existing natty viruses don't use. This wouldn't prevent synthetic viruses from being developed that use the alternate codons, of course. See (1) https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/hgp-write/2016-05-10/ultr... and (2) https://diyhpl.us/wiki/trans…

Ignoring the impracticality of trying to deploy this, codon bias exists for a reason, it's a translation-regulation mechanism and you'd wind up having to do a massive amount of protein engineering to not mess up everything.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#270

Post by jacquesm »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #267
vrganj wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The one economically useful thing we will be able to do is legal property ownership. This is correct. But we don't need to ban AI to avoid the permanent underclass nightmare. It's time for the means of production to be owned communally. It's either a cybersocialist utopia or a neofeudalist dystopia. Rosa Luxemburg formulated it pretty well more than a hundred years ago: Socialism or Barbarism! .

What kind of political leverage do the useless have? This isn't a realistically sustainable outcome. Today, people have leverage because removing them has real economic consequences. With AI, we need to be on the useful side of the divide to have any leverage. And then we'd better hope AI has respect for property rights.

Property rights might be the least of your problems.
Post reply on HN