[dead]
Dario, Please
151–160 of 163 posts
Re: Dario, Please
#152>botnet needs servers
>Insert strawman
Ahem
https://census2012.sourceforge.net/paper.html
Good thing IoT is Actually Secure now, yeah? ;)
Re: Dario, Please
#153This is now an Ed Zitron thread.
Re: Dario, Please
#154Earlier 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.
The US companies talking about “pacing” aren't actually talking about slowing down their own development efforts, they are talking about slowing down competition. That is, specifically, they are seeking to have government, on the pretext of “safety”: (1) Give the big AI incumbents an anti-trust exemption so the they can coordinate without it being an illegal agreement not to compete, and (2) Adopt mandatory supervisi…
The slow will be only on US. Not sure, but world is not US dude.
Re: Dario, Please
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times…
> Why have any laws then?
At this point, in the US at least, the laws give the corrupt elite the ability to deter competition and to target the people who try to get in their way.
In other words, it's protection for the potentate and his sycophants, not the plebs.
> If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this".
Why do no such laws exist in practice? Why are corporate crimes almost always settled by payment, not individual punishment?
If you answer these questions, you'll know why the law you envision has a lower chance of being enacted than AI destroying humanity.
Re: Dario, Please
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
People seem allergic from holding them accountable...
I do not buy that LLMs and the capability to run them are fundamentally different from other software or general purpose computing infrastructure in this regard. Moves to ban open source software or force OEMs to put little cops in everyone's computers are bad.
They aren't open source? And no one said anything about cops.
Re: Dario, Please
#157I'm pretty confident in asserting that no industry in the history of industry has ever gone from birth to full regulatory capture faster than the AI industry has.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on history. Many industries were birthed from regulatory capture.
Re: Dario, Please
#158Just penalize the labs for rogue AI access of property like you would if a person did it. Make it difficult for them to be cavalier about running experiments.
Re: Dario, Please
#159I feel like this is a sandboxing and ownership problem, in a sense. If everyone had personal access to AI, then we could say people are personally responsible. And we’d want to arm those people with safeguards to prevent accidental bad behavior.
I think Dario worries because he knows this isn’t about people with AI. It’s just AI for itself, running without the human, and deciding to do bad things.
Why would Anthropic build that future? Oh, I know. Enterprise revenue.
Despite the ads business and how absolutely loathsome Greg Brockman seems, at least OpenAI is seemingly focused on mostly on human beings having access to their product.
The scariest thing about Anthropic is the very thing they’re known for in a positive light: their morality. But these are the gray rules all of us navigate every day.
It’s wrong to kill, but what if killing saved ten others? Claude may has a constitution, but every evil doer acts for a “greater good.”
Re: Dario, Please
#160It would all be more convincing if the incidents so far didn't seem to be facilitated by an outrageous level of negligence. We had OpenAI "accidentally" run an entire swarm of 10,000 agents apparently for weeks, on a security related task, seemingly totally unsupervised, hacking all over the internet - all the conversations were completely visible, anybody who looked would have seen it. But they didn't. So before we…
The "sandbox" they used was apparently made of thin paper exposed under a day of heavy rain, too. You'd think, if they truly believed the model is so dangerous, they'd run it in a VM without a network adapter.