361–370 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The danger lies with someone asking the machine to solve those two questions and it decides to cheat the solution. Launching every nuke in the world stops all wars, just like wiping out 99% of humanity ends world hunger.
I don't think killing people solves world hunger, we already produce enough food to feed everyone, it's just not evenly distributed.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the (b|tr)illionare class? I'd assume they have access to enough legal services to make even the government careful of trampling their first amendment rights. Is the national security gag order process so strong that the government doesn't have to worry about motivated, well-resourced actors buying really good lawyers and blowing up their favorite tool? Hard to hire a lawyer after being struck with a missile as…
In the US, this would likely lead to the immediate launch of a new Business Plot, if the government weren’t already captured by those same interests. (Which also explains why your hypothetical won’t happen.)
Won't be too surprised if the next Democrat leadership throws the book at Musk; and give how unpopular Data Centres are generally (and how uninterested Republicans seem to be in EVs), only mildly surprised if the next Republican after Trump likewise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They allegedly believe the technology itself is a nuclear weapon tier threat or greater, so why does it matter which lab they are trying to achieve it at?
They're trying to make it not be a threat, and are all scared and afraid that their best efforts to make it harmless are not enough. Some are worried by the AI directly bringing doom; others are worried that one of the companies who control the AI will become a dictator; still more think becoming a dictator is a necessary step to safely prevent anyone else making unsafe AI. Painting them all under one brush is like d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think they’re exaggerating (again) or do you think they should taken at face value and treated as hostile actors?
There's plenty of people who think greenhouse gas/global warming campaigns against fossil fuels are "exaggerating", that "earth was warm/the climate changed in the past", that a fee degrees isn't bad, that CO2 is good for plants. 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 trans…
Yet here we are talking about some vague "trust me bro" instead and you making some vague insinuation of climate change denial.
But that's an aside. Do you think we should treat them as liars or threats?
I have to wonder if some us are just much more inured to salespeople and thus also to "AI Safety" propaganda. I've yet to have a logical discussion with anyone who thinks the "AI Safety" people should be in charge and I think they just truly don't that what most them actually want is to be the one holding the keys to power.
I find it hard to accord with this world view at all or understand how it can come about. But it's especially troubling as a non-American to see people talk about "we can't risk AI falling into the hands of hostile authoritarian states" while advocating that AI be regulated and monopolized by the current US corporate/gov't mixture.. which is now taking the form of a hostile and authoritarian state w/ Silicon Valley as its bedmate.
I have to wonder if some us are just much more inured to salespeople and thus also to "AI Safety" propaganda. I've yet to have a logical discussion with anyone who thinks the "AI Safety" people should be in charge and I think they just truly don't that what most them actually want is to be the one holding the keys to power.
I am an AI Safety Person and I want the government to nationalize or have a significant stake in the frontier labs and to have democratic control of the development of the technology. The AI Safety movement is not a monolith. I do not think Eliezer Yudkowsky nor his acolytes should hold the reins, but a lot of folks sure like to create a strawman that anyone who wants to regulate OpenAI is somehow an EA/MIRI weirdo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You trust trump more than any of those three? Really?
You can have an arbitrarily low opinion of Trump and still trust in democracy as a form of government over autocracy or oligarchy, which is what the AI labs have.
The majority of the world will refuse to be subject to American AI laws under the control of the US gov't, whether it pretends to be democratic or not. Or should.
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…
* Frontier models need infinite high quality private IP to keep them fed. Forcing an IP theft funnel ensures big lab survival and model intelligence growth. * Open-weight models are 1month behind frontier models. Cheaper, faster, private (no IP theft), steerable (you can security harden your own software without safeguard triggers). No sane business would keep using these API services if they didn't have to. The labs…
If correct, grip is tightening. Used to be 1y, then 6 months ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* Frontier models need infinite high quality private IP to keep them fed. Forcing an IP theft funnel ensures big lab survival and model intelligence growth. * Open-weight models are 1month behind frontier models. Cheaper, faster, private (no IP theft), steerable (you can security harden your own software without safeguard triggers). No sane business would keep using these API services if they didn't have to. The labs…
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.
Given they keep grinding away towards our alleged collective doom, I suspect it’s being overstated. Nobody knows what P(doom) actually is but I suspect it’s orders of magnitude closer to epsilon than 1.
Recall Google’s Blake Lemoine who thought an old version of Gemini was sentient.