201–210 of 534 posts
"To effectively contain a civilization’s development and disarm it across such a long span of time, there is only one way: kill its science." - Cixin Liu, The Three-Body Problem This immediately made me think of the Sophons silently manipulating the sensors of particle accelerators to prevent humanity from developing advanced knowledge of particle physics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is infinitely valuable.
10 engineers can make a billion dollar company. One Claude can replace 10 engineers. This gets very close to "infinitely valuable", it starts to look like a vertical line to me
There's a night and day difference between:
1. One party has ASI and everybody else has nothing but their human brains.
2. One party has ASI and everybody else has high-level AI but not quite ASI.
Most science fiction assumes world 1, because it's a better narrative. However, we actually live in world 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.
> "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. Yes it is. (1) Ordinary people were able to do these things pre AI-- with some effort into study for sure. (2) The cat is already out of the bag, open models can already help with these tasks. I know freedom is frightening, but it always has been. It's important to avoid falling into the trap of assuming that everything that existed when you gained awareness was safe and norm…
> Ordinary people were able to do these things pre AI-- with some effort into study for sure.
Yes, and the amount of study and knowledge required had a tendency to filter out people with the inclination to do such things. The Venn diagrams weren't completely empty, but they were close, which is why such incidents were rare.
> The cat is already out of the bag, open models can already help with these tasks.
This is not binary. Open models can do these things. Frontier models can do them better. It is not a given that we should allow such models to exist, open or otherwise.
It is as if Jetbrains told that "you can't use IntelliJ Idea to develop frontier IDE. We can introduce slight compilation errors if we detect you doing so".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.
Presumably by making it "difficult enough" to misuse the tools. We don't need perfect censorship or surveillance. There are all sorts of things that are technically possible today but typically aren't an issue in practice due to some oftey fairly minor hurdles. Aum literally synthesized sarin in the 90s so clearly it's doable yet in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem that crops up regularly. Anyone with a bache…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. The Chinese apache 2.0 models might be censored, but at least they can’t sue you in the US for finding the censorship line. OTOH, the US models are definitely censored, per TFA, and they’re making vague legal threats against anyone that encounters the censored edge of the model.
> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Demand open source approve licenses for LLM weights. How would you solve, for instance, the problem in which AI models are capable of helping the average person build viruses (computer or human)? "YOLO" is not a reasonable answer here. I am a massive advocate of Open Source, and have been for 25+ years. These things should not exist, open or otherwise.
Building a virus, on your own network, probably isn't a crime. We already have all kinds of laws to catch and punish people when they cause harm.
There are plenty of legal uses for a fully automatic AR-15 too, yet we still ban it.
Reminds me of an excerpt from Edward Fredkin's "The intelligent machine" [1]
https://noor.imx.sh/2017/09/30/when-they-communicate-they-co...