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

We Will Not Be Divided

notdivided.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 912 posts

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#171

Post by txrx0000 »

jefftk wrote: post #115
txrx0000 wrote: post #48

This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force. It's time to open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run 100% transparent labs so that there's nothing to take from you. Level the playing field for good and bad actors alike, otherwise the bad actors will get their hands on it while everyone else is left behind…

A "world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human" would be a world in which people could easily create humanity-ending bioweapons. I would love to live in a less vulnerable world, and am working full time to bring about such a world, but in the meantime what you describe would likely be a disaster.

There are plenty of physical and legal barriers to creating a bioweapon and that's not going to change if everyone becomes smarter with AI. And even if we really somehow end up in a world where everyone has a lab at home and people can easily create viruses, they can also easily create vaccines and anti-virals. The advancements in medicine will outpace bioweapons by a lot because most people are afraid of bioweapons.

Intelligence itself is not dangerous unless only a few orgs control it and it's aligned to those orgs' values rather than human values. The safety narrative is just "intelligence for me, but not for thee" in disguise.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#172

Post by [deleted] »

dmix wrote: post #139
BitsAndObjects wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK and Europe welcome the US Footgun Operation. Plenty of opportunities for those top researchers and engineers over here. The EU (which is not the same as Europe), is also looking a bit sharper on AI regulation at the moment (for now… not perfect but sharper etc etc).

The EU and UK is a long way from attracting top AI talent purely from opportunity and monetary terms. Not to mention UK is arguably further down the mass surveillance pipeline than the US. They’ve always had more aggressive domestic intelligence surveillance laws which was made clear during the Snowden years, they’ve had flock style cameras forever, and they have an anti encryption law pitched seemingly yearly. I’d i…

[deleted]

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#173

Post by dcre »

oceanplexian wrote: post #160
jefftk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "world where millions of AGIs run on millions of gaming PCs, where each AI is aligned with an individual human" would be a world in which people could easily create humanity-ending bioweapons. I would love to live in a less vulnerable world, and am working full time to bring about such a world, but in the meantime what you describe would likely be a disaster.

I’m tired of these bizarre hypothetical gotcha arguments. If AI can create bioweapons, it can equally create vaccines and antidotes to them. We live in a free society. AI should be democratized like any other technology.

This is just not thinking clearly. There are bad things that are asymmetric in character, dramatically easier to do than to mitigate. There’s no antidote or vaccine to nuclear weapons.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#175

Post by toraway »

engineer_22 wrote: post #129
TehCorwiz wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation please.

Selective Service System is evidence enough of the government's power to oblige participation in defence.... But if you're interested... https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

That link is specifically discussing actions the government takes in war. Like, a real, ongoing, war where it's accepted extraordinary actions may be necessary that conflict with peacetime rights to private property (it was written during World War 2).

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#176

Post by thereitgoes456 »

timr wrote: post #165
thimabi wrote: post #68

The problem with forcing public policy on companies is that companies are ultimately made from individuals, and surely you can’t force public policy down people’s throats. I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has. Such a waste of talent trying to make them bend over to the government’s wishes… instead of actually fostering innovation in the very c…

I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to t…

The President is crashing out on X because a company didn’t do what they wanted. “Forcing” is not a binary. Do you seriously believe that the government’s behavior here is acceptable and has no chilling effect on future companies?

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#177

Post by galleywest200 »

timr wrote: post #165
thimabi wrote: post #68

The problem with forcing public policy on companies is that companies are ultimately made from individuals, and surely you can’t force public policy down people’s throats. I’m sure nothing good can come out of strong-arming some of the brightest scientists and engineers the U.S. has. Such a waste of talent trying to make them bend over to the government’s wishes… instead of actually fostering innovation in the very c…

I don't see how public policy is being "forced" on anyone here? It seems like the system is working as intended: government wants to do X; company A says "I won't allow my product to be used for X"; government refuses to do business with company A. One side thinks the government should be allowed to dictate terms to a private supplier, the other side thinks the private supplier should be allowed to dictate terms to t…

The government declaring a domestic company as a supply chain threat is a tad more than “refusing to do business” don’t you think?

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#178

Post by bcooke »

charcircuit wrote: post #162

Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold a gun that you couldn't use against X or Y country. Private companies imposing such demands on our military should not be respected. Having weapons that can randomly detect a false positive and shut themselves down because they think you are using it wrong is a feature I would never want built in. I have also been against these terms of services of restricting usage of AI models. It…

Taking principled stands should absolutely be respected.

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#179

Post by piskov »

BitsAndObjects wrote: post #120
piskov wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do UK and Europe have hardware manufacturing for those researches to work with once US imposes GPU export restrictions to them at the first whiff of competition/threat?

Yes. And the US can’t realistically stop our well-funded homegrown AI Hardware startups from manufacturing with TSMC. This is part of why there’s funding from the EU to develop Sovereign AI capabilities, currently focused on designing our own hardware. We’re nothing like as far behind as you might expect in terms of tech, just in terms of scale. Also, while US export restrictions might make things awkward for a short…

> And the US can’t realistically stop our well-funded homegrown AI Hardware startups from manufacturing with TSMC

See what happened to Russian Baikal production on TSMC

Re: We Will Not Be Divided

#180

Post by dlev_pika »

charcircuit wrote: post #162

Imagine if a gun manufacturer sold a gun that you couldn't use against X or Y country. Private companies imposing such demands on our military should not be respected. Having weapons that can randomly detect a false positive and shut themselves down because they think you are using it wrong is a feature I would never want built in. I have also been against these terms of services of restricting usage of AI models. It…

It sounds like you think that Anthropic is the first company regulating the use of their product. This is not a novelty whatsoever.
Post reply on HN