301–309 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no way I use the same model as US Army for $20. Don't underestimate market pressure. If there are no regulations, why would a company give the US Army access to a better product?
They have hundreds billions dollars budgets.
They are talking about slowing down the public facing AI development. Because then nation states can create a capabilities gap between them and the public. Why does nobody seem to be pointing out this obvious explanation? It explains why the “we need to race China” concern suddenly vanished in the discussion. The government can simply gag Sam, Dario, Musk on national security basis, getting them all behind the public…
I’m pretty confident this has already happened. Public models are behind their internal models and just above Chinese models. Only thing closing the gap is Chinese models pushing. I’m not American. There is no way I use the same model as US Army for $20. When we have Sol they have Astra. When we have Astra they have Nova, Nebula, Galaxia…
If we're talking about the 3 letter agencies well then..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Supersonic passenger aircraft were operated profitably Were they? IIRC joint project by British and French national airlines, they expected to sell loads, hardly anyone wanted to buy the planes, the two airlines kept them flying out of government embarassment.
should probably spell it out: _it wasn't allowed to get to supersonic speed_. Same way we dont _allow_ eugenics.
We are able to effectively regulate things like the operation of massive aircraft, eugenics, the dumping of toxic waste, or the refinement of nuclear material. But there are also plenty of things that we can't effectively regulate for purely practical reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know people at METR and Anthropic. When they tell you they're worried the tech they're working on may kill everyone despite their best efforts, perhaps believe them.
Or you know, stop working on it if its that dangerous? This whole thing of a bunch of employees saying that they are scared of building what they are building, but do it anyway because they are somehow going to make it different? Their model has been used in the planning of mass murdering in war as well as spying on the entire worlds population as well as helping ICE out in the US. They need to stop this BS fearmonge…
Selection effect.
Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is staying in/joining/founding new AI research lab" does that.
Everyone who thinks "the biggest difference I can make is leaving/whistleblowing", does that.
Treating both groups as the same by virtue of employer is the goomba fallacy.
Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.
Obligatory "what's Lygma?" But in all seriousness, this AI doomerism has reached a comedic inflection point. A few years ago, GPT-2 was too dangerous to release, then some Google weirdo said Gemini had a soul or something, then Mythos-tier became a meme, then some kid quit and went on FOX News talking about Skynet, and now Amodei and Altman are both on the "we need to slow down" train again; this is after we've alrea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know people at METR and Anthropic. When they tell you they're worried the tech they're working on may kill everyone despite their best efforts, perhaps believe them.
Do you think they’re exaggerating (again) or do you think they should taken at face value and treated as hostile actors?
Are you likeminded?
In this case, it's as if the oil and coal companies all said in the 60s and 70s "oh no, this research we did, it's all really bad; we need help to figure out how to transition away from this incredibly economically important input", rather than the observed reality where their entire PR campaign was approximately:
there is no problem everything is fine and all critics are smelly hippies and/or communists; and/or hate the poor who are raised out of poverty by all the economic growth from the fossil fuel industry.