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

Dario, Please

pop.rdi.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 177 posts

Re: Dario, Please

#111

Post by sdenton4 »

augment_me wrote: post #96
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

Ha, regulation got outpaced by technology in about 1996. Ten years later we had the 'series of tubes' comment in the Senate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

Re: Dario, Please

#112

Post by nobody9999 »

actionfromafar wrote: post #27
Rover222 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What damage was done by the last arms race you mentioned? There have been precisely 0 nuclear weapons detonated (outside of testing) since that arms race began.

But isn't it a bit different? Unaligned bombs didn't break out of their confines on their own. And "compute" is a bit harder to control than uranium and refinement tech.

>Unaligned bombs didn't break out of their confines on their own.

You really buy that ridiculous argument that "the AI broke out of its sandbox! We had no idea! It's dangerous I tell you, dangerous! Unless you make us the sole gatekeepers of this incredibly dangerous 'intelligence', everybody gonna die!"

Please.

Bring the CFAA[0] hammer down on these guys and watch how fast those "uncontrollable" LLMs get controlled. "Oh, gee! Prison? We can't control this stuff...but it'll never happen again!"

That whole thing was, and is, a bunch of hooey. Those running the LLMs are entirely responsible for them, there is no such thing as agency for algorithms. Full stop.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

Re: Dario, Please

#113

Post by BobbyJo »

felixgallo wrote: post #19
TutleCpt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. There's no slowing down whatsoever. If the US slows down AI development, China will just leapfrog them, which they're getting close to doing. The US AI companies saying they need to slow down is just PR nonsense.

And yet we all have failed to die so far from nuclear holocaust, despite Russia being our dire enemy, because of a system of agreed controls and limits between even nations that hate each other.

I don't think the agreements played any important role outside of limiting tests. I highly doubt agreements about nukes in particular have meaningfully curbed risks of their use. MAD has played a much larger role in that, and MAD is kind of the antithesis of control agreements, it is the natural equilibrium in the game.

Re: Dario, Please

#114

Post by felixgallo »

nxm wrote: post #86
felixgallo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet we all have failed to die so far from nuclear holocaust, despite Russia being our dire enemy, because of a system of agreed controls and limits between even nations that hate each other.

We came very, very close too many times

now imagine if we didn't even try, and instead had kids screaming for 'local nukes' because they wanted them, and the president didn't see what the problem was.

Re: Dario, Please

#115

Post by trhway »

ball_of_lint wrote: post #109
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on…

> it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem.

we have the 2008 crisis to wit. And the involved supposedly failed math models and lines of responsibilities and other involved financial relationships were much simpler and clearer and of the types well known to the law and regulators, yet...

Additionally any urge to regulate AI is attenuated by how much the situation reminds Industrial Revolution - rush into it laying waste to your land (look at the depictions of industrial England back then) and be among the world leaders or stay pastoral and be devoured/colonized/etc. by the industrial powers like happened with many countries in 19th and even into 20th century. One would think there should be a 3rd way. I'm sure there is one, as well as i'm sure that we lack sufficient global societal mentality level needed to achieve it (we couldn't even handle much simpler climate change issue). May be emerging AI itself at some point will get us there (hope we'll like or at least will be compatible with that future :)

Edit: just on NPR - Trump said that AI already has all the necessary guardrails - the smart high IQ President.

Re: Dario, Please

#116

Post by skybrian »

chao- wrote: post #80
skybrian wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people focus so much on finding scapegoats? Finding someone to blame is neither necessary nor sufficient to fix a system so an accident doesn't happen again. It might act as as an incentive to fix a system, but it's less direct than actually working on fixing the system.

A starting note: I don't disagree with you (about systemic issues), but I want to explain what I understand as the perspective you are responding to. A "scapegoat" is someone who is incorrectly blamed for someone else's errors or sins. The perspective you're responding to is this: They built the system, they run the system, they have continuously warned "This system is dangerous!", and yet persisted. That is not bein…

Sometimes in "normalization of deviance" situations, there isn't anyone specifically to blame. I wouldn't make an assumption that you can find anyone particularly blameworthy without doing an investigation first.

Re: Dario, Please

#117

Post by fooker »

platinumrad wrote: post #108
fooker wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not mathematical logic. Of course you can't prove the causality of anything in history. The only way to do that would be to invent a time machine, delete the nukes and watch things play out. There are direct quotes from Nixon and Reagan that claims this to be true. That is enough evidence for me.

Surely we can do better than Nixon and Reagan.

In terms of politics, sure.

In terms of cold war presidents itching to start wars, no.

Re: Dario, Please

#118

Post by BobbyTables2 »

augment_me wrote: post #96
vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

I don’t think lack of regulation is necessarily it.

If I build a robot that murders my neighbor, I’m still at fault.

We don’t absolve drivers of responsibility because of cruise control.

In that sense, AI is nothing new. If it is abused to cause harm, the person behind it should be liable.

Re: Dario, Please

#119

Post by leoqa »

vb-8448 wrote: post #26

> “a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.” I'm wondering why no one is mentioning the "accountability" word. Why these companies are allowed to damage others with impunity? Start making managers pay the price for their actions, and watch how the models magically slow down on their own.

I mean these machines take massive scale compute- they’d have to some how distill themselves, bootstrap a distributed inference runtime that can run across many lossy unreliable machines. The idea of the AI running away from us is probably unrealistic. I’m more interested in bad actors using unaligned AI for bad things.

Re: Dario, Please

#120

Post by dansquizsoft »

sdenton4 wrote: post #111
augment_me wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation got outpaced by technological development around 2023, as evident by the every AI regulation since being 2-3 years behind and having to be amended and resubmitted. Whatever you try to make laws for now will be irrelevant in 1-2 years. You either have to go extremely broad, like the EU does it, and accept that people will find loopholes, or you need to target specific technologies which is a hard job for th…

Ha, regulation got outpaced by technology in about 1996. Ten years later we had the 'series of tubes' comment in the Senate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

Ha! Regulation has not really ever kept up with technology... For fundamental reasons.
Post reply on HN