Live data from Hacker News

Do you want the US to "win" AI?

geohot.github.io

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#61

> Do you want the US to "win" AI? I don't want any one particular country, or organization, to "win" AI. I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out, so that everybody has access to approximately equal levels of AI. If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".

This smells like how markets would work well if everyone had a little capital. But money is too fungible. The more you have the more you can get.

But if electricity and hardware is a proxy for AI then those things are much less fungible. And if those two things in turn are not tied to the hip with money.

> If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".

Has OSS won in terms of being software for the people?

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#62
post #29

I don’t want the US to win anything ever again. They are a net negative in this world, obsessed with short term profits. Countries like China with long term objectives are better.

I'm a bit sad that the US now look less reliable (and, on average, more of a net negative) than China, but I can't blame anyone who has that impression right now. As long as the guy who sets the long term objectives is reasonably sane, I guess? Putin attacked Ukraine, Trump (and Bibi) attacked Iran, I'm hoping Xi is smarter and doesn't attack Taiwan, otherwise we can all say good bye to our jobs, and who "wins" AI wi…

I think China has too much to gain by looking like the word's stable alternative to America. What really gets me depressed is their current trajectory towards cultural homogeneity, even internally. There seems to be a real push to calcify the Han identity. I don't know why dictators are so drawn to homogenizing their own cultures when nature itself seems to point to diversity as strength. It leaves me still kind of hoping America is somehow able to pull its head out of its ass, but they'll have to overcome their own oligarchy and entrenched structures - Trump was a symptom.

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#63
I think this is a late realisation that people are having that none of those guys are good guys.

People passionate by science see rockets to go to mars, politicians see missiles and spy satellites.

I have a conviction that this was the intention all along. I really hope to be wrong about of this and there is a super good guy who will step up and stop all this nonsense.

I agree that the world where AI is a tool that everybody should have real access too should be the way, but history shows that power never came without oppression. Majority of people took all the risks as paranoia and/or do not have enough understanding.

The moment those tools became slightly better, they started to being used against the wills of everyone who helped building them.

We should stop believing that those folks in charge are good guys or simply doing mistakes. They are doing exactly what they have been working on for 10+ more years.

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#64
The author doesn't really address the question in the title.

Read "Superintelligence", we are basically racing towards the extinction of our species by creating a self generating alien intelligence that will quickly grow and escape any controls we attempt to place on it.

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#65
post #29

I don’t want the US to win anything ever again. They are a net negative in this world, obsessed with short term profits. Countries like China with long term objectives are better.

I'm a bit sad that the US now look less reliable (and, on average, more of a net negative) than China, but I can't blame anyone who has that impression right now. As long as the guy who sets the long term objectives is reasonably sane, I guess? Putin attacked Ukraine, Trump (and Bibi) attacked Iran, I'm hoping Xi is smarter and doesn't attack Taiwan, otherwise we can all say good bye to our jobs, and who "wins" AI wi…

It’s all about appearances isn’t it. America has dropped more bombs than China. When did China bomb a country last time? But appearances change and that is sad.

The only thing that changed was that America turned on its client states and started saying unhinged shit instead of appearances-speeches like spreading freedom and democracy.

Edit: replaced “has bombed more countries than China” with “dropped more bombs”

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#66

I suppose I'd rather the US wins AI as opposed to, say, China

The real winner in this subthread: negative polarization. It's kind of incredible to watch. Show people two actors, point out the bad things one has done, and they instantly apply "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic and turn into China boosters. Without even considering that there might be, say, other options.

China provides some great manufactured goods (I may well buy a Chinese car) and runs an ordered society with clean streets and good public transport. But because it doesn't have a free press, you and I (and most Chinese citizens) can't see what the downsides are. They're politely but firmly swept under the rug. And if you get on the wrong side of the "ordered society", it can go very badly for you.

Perhaps the real lesson is how the American right have so successfully poisoned the idea of competitive politics and free speech that a literal one party state looks better than .. whatever the hell is going on over there. People would opt to give up their right to politics simply in order to not be subjected to politics.

(remember how Mao recruited the first few Communists effectively one village at a time? The tradeoff was paying taxes to them rather than the Emperor, and if any imperial tax collectors wandered in to ask the rebels would deal with them. A common model for effective revolutions. But it absolutely hinges on being able to deliver better material conditions.)

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#67
The contents of this post, in some parts, is somewhat alien to me. The need to pick a side, root for someone, and figure out a winner. It's very sports team like and detracts from the goals, effects and outcomes of the topic itself. It is entirely possible that there are no good and bad sides, nor is there any need for someone to win any kind of made up trophy.

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#68

It's weird to see geohot rooting against Elon considering his involvement in the early days following Twitter's acquisition.

Real error of judgement in not being able to see when Elon went overtly bad. Of course, the libertarian classic: he was only harming other people.

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#69

> Do you want the US to "win" AI? I don't want any one particular country, or organization, to "win" AI. I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out, so that everybody has access to approximately equal levels of AI. If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".

[flagged]

Re: Do you want the US to "win" AI?

#70
post #64

The author doesn't really address the question in the title. Read "Superintelligence", we are basically racing towards the extinction of our species by creating a self generating alien intelligence that will quickly grow and escape any controls we attempt to place on it.

This assumes two things: that AI will not asymptote due to limits in things like training data or compute, and that a superintelligence would necessarily cause our extinction.

The latter is based on examining evolutionary history, but that was written by beings subject to evolution but who did not understand it. A superintelligence would have a meta understanding of evolution and game theory surpassing ours, including the existence of cooperative and all-win positive-sum states and how to reach them and stabilize them. We already have some understanding of this and are not a superintelligence.

And with that, I just added that as a prompt to the training data.

Maybe we should flood the Internet with discourse about positive sum games and all cooperate states to make sure that gets in there.

Post reply on HN