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

We must pace the frontier

darioamodei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 937 posts

Re: We must pace the frontier

#421

Post by xg15 »

logicchains wrote: post #360
Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

>Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. It's not just "companies". Even if the company does nothing, enterprising employees are going to use LLMs to magnify their productivity, which will may reduce the company's need to hire more employees. An…

Yes, but that employee might use that increased productivity to do the stuff that's always advertised as the benefits of automation: Allocate more time to tasks that usually don't get it - or: go home earlier and spend more time with friends and family.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#422

Post by vb-8448 »

If there were really concerned about humanity future they'd donate everything to public and/or to not profits ... but the not profit turned in a for profit and the other one is seeking for the biggest IPO in history.

Maybe they are genuinely sincere, but the timing and the past actions are pointing in other direction.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#423

Post by stale2002 »

Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place.

Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#425

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

Aurornis wrote: post #397
Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Regulate what, exactly? Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. There’s a theoretical version where all the countries in the world join hands and agree not to compete…

> Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules.

Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs.

What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into?

Just as with H1B visas, you restrict usage. For example, don't allow AI to replace any job that pays under $250K.

If foreign countries make things cheaper, just as China is making EVs that cost a fraction of a Tesla, then slap tariffs on them.

A government should be primarily concerned about the people it represents, not about the profitability of the companies who are lobbying/bribing it.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#426

Post by xg15 »

stale2002 wrote: post #423
Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

Work like writing blogs and drawing pictures?

Re: We must pace the frontier

#427

Post by oktaygoktas »

spzb wrote: post #283
oktaygoktas wrote: post #280

This is the most advanced technology ever developed because it can build all other technologies. It has enormous potential but poses proportionally serious risks, so what Dario is suggesting is very reasonable.

There’s a lot of [citation needed] going on there

If you mean proof of "the most advanced tech" part, from alpha go&fold, to NS solutions there is a lot and more will come. But maybe you are right, electricity is as important because it enabled everything that followed (semi, compute, internet, ai ...)

Re: We must pace the frontier

#428

Post by Phelinofist »

csto12 wrote: post #366
braydenm wrote: post #270

Before Anthropic, I worked at Cruise for four years as it competed against Waymo. The culture rewarded (and demanded) moving quickly, trusting that the company could empirically discover the risks that the robot cars posed and iteratively solve them to keep up with the rate at which it was scaling out its technology. There was very little interest or appetite for coordinating or collaborating with other AV companies…

It’s not explicitly stated, but if you are insinuating that you don’t know how many more Saturdays you will have left to play outside because of the AI race while working for Anthropic, do you not have agency to quit? How could you be apart of something that makes you feel that way? That blows my mind.

Those sweet $$$. He probably gets a few shares once they IPO.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#429

Post by Aurornis »

rickydroll wrote: post #338
Chance-Device wrote: post #306

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that…

Whenever someone talks about regulation, I always have the same question: How do you enforce it? How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. Legislating against using AI to replace employees could create an unevenly distributed basic income. The idea of limiting AI to socially beneficial effort…

> How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work.

I don’t think the proponents of these ideas care about who does the work. They see it as protection for specific jobs. Basically a jobs program with the costs forced on to large corporations.

As you said, it becomes a great gift to the few people lucky enough (or more usually, with enough nepotistic connections) to get those easy street jobs. It would not help everyone else in the economy.

It would also accelerate moving jobs overseas. Any company that regulates productivity that far downward would be crazy to continue doing automatable work in that country. It just gets moved to foreign offices where they can use AI. There are regulatory maximalists who say we’ll just regulate that, too, but then the whole company relocates to another country. Then some want to try to regulate that, and so on ad infinitum but it’s all layers of holding back your domestic companies so their international competitors can eat their lunch.

Re: We must pace the frontier

#430

Post by thadt »

Hard disagree. Our choices are:

A) Bet our collective good on the national and international cooperation of all companies, nations, and people to come together in order to slow down development of one of the most powerful economic tools (and/or weapons) the world has ever known. Or

B) Assume that all our systems will be targeted by super hackers right now, and take appropriate measures to deal with that reality.

If I have to put my community’s wellbeing on the line behind one of those possibilities, I know which I’ll be betting on.

Post reply on HN