4 ms·

Still, better this is done in the open. Otherwise Russia and China will just continue in secret, which is definitely a world I don't want to live in.

EGreg 9y ago
I agree it should be done in the open. Doesn't make it much less scary.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  It does make it less scary because we progress into this 'new world' together as a society. Therefore laws and regulations can hopefully keep up and we don't end up in a dystopia nightmare scenario.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - SebNag_ 9y ago
    > laws and regulations can hopefully keep up I strongly doubt that.
justicezyx 9y ago
Not sure what you want to say. US can do it open, China and Russia can still do it in secret. While, as a matter of fact, you will be naive if you believe that there is no secret research happening inside US government agencies.
- hacker_9 9y ago
  My point is there is no stopping this research now, open or not neural nets just have too much potential. So I'm happy there is an open initiative that the big players support.
  - justicezyx 9y ago
    I think you are being too optimistic. Big companies are just equally a problem as big governments. They are even more effective and efficient in collecting user data and reaching privacy sensitive information. AI in general has become a game for big players, that's in itself a worrying trend.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The point being, top-line research still happens on somewhat open market, where knowledge is shared and people - including those working on AI safety - can participate. The alternative would be countries and/or corporations developing all that tech in secret.
    - lowpro 9y ago
      Big companies are not like government. Government is the law and what everyone adheres to; companies simply aren't. A private company can't force you to do anything you didn't agree to (agreement = contract/interaction), governments force people to do things they can't opt out of. Corporations are bad, but governments are much worse because they can use information they have to force people. If you are thinking that lobbying means corporations are basically government and therefore it's all the same, this isn't true either as lobbying doesn't always happen, and even through lobbying corporations normally lobby for favorable non-restrictive legislation, it doesn't allow them to force people as a government does.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Nah, you're thinking too directly. Private companies can absolutely force you to do anything you don't want to, but they rarely do this - too costly in a system with a somewhat working rule of law - and if they do this, they do it pretty subtly. Examples from all across the spectrum: - Strong companies can and do force weak governments to adopt whatever policies they want; see e.g. tobacco companies and their fight against health warnings on cigarette boxes. Or private companies and their private armies - happened in the past (e.g. East India Company), happens today (why do you think people kill each other in Africa over tantalum they don't have technological capability to use?). - Lobbying you mentioned. Doesn't always happen, but happens frequently. - Various low-level deals and bribery on e.g. city scale. - Low-skilled jobs. Just talk to people who are stuck with those, especially in smaller cities. Employers can, and routinely do, make them do anything because they basically own them. So yeah, private companies are not like governments. They can't just go and coerce you to do something in the name of law. But they have lots of less direct ways to coerce people if they really want to. The job of the government is usually to make them not want to.
obscolescence 9y ago
The question was "is this good", not "could this be done in a worse way". > Russia and China Those use the US as an excuse. Of course, these entities are only convenient monoliths when it comes to pushing the interests of very small groups within them, not when a poor American or Russian or Chinese asks a wealthy one to share. Also, why is something done in secret and something done out in the open a zero sum game? I would think the opposite is the case, when you already have the infrastructure for 99.9% and only have to set the evil bit, that's a lot easier than doing it secretly when nobody else is doing it at all.

EGreg 9y ago

I agree it should be done in the open. Doesn't make it much less scary.

hacker_9 9y ago
It does make it less scary because we progress into this 'new world' together as a society. Therefore laws and regulations can hopefully keep up and we don't end up in a dystopia nightmare scenario.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SebNag_ 9y ago
  > laws and regulations can hopefully keep up I strongly doubt that.

justicezyx 9y ago

Not sure what you want to say. US can do it open, China and Russia can still do it in secret. While, as a matter of fact, you will be naive if you believe that there is no secret research happening inside US government agencies.

hacker_9 9y ago
My point is there is no stopping this research now, open or not neural nets just have too much potential. So I'm happy there is an open initiative that the big players support.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  I think you are being too optimistic. Big companies are just equally a problem as big governments. They are even more effective and efficient in collecting user data and reaching privacy sensitive information. AI in general has become a game for big players, that's in itself a worrying trend.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The point being, top-line research still happens on somewhat open market, where knowledge is shared and people - including those working on AI safety - can participate. The alternative would be countries and/or corporations developing all that tech in secret.
  - lowpro 9y ago
    Big companies are not like government. Government is the law and what everyone adheres to; companies simply aren't. A private company can't force you to do anything you didn't agree to (agreement = contract/interaction), governments force people to do things they can't opt out of. Corporations are bad, but governments are much worse because they can use information they have to force people. If you are thinking that lobbying means corporations are basically government and therefore it's all the same, this isn't true either as lobbying doesn't always happen, and even through lobbying corporations normally lobby for favorable non-restrictive legislation, it doesn't allow them to force people as a government does.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Nah, you're thinking too directly. Private companies can absolutely force you to do anything you don't want to, but they rarely do this - too costly in a system with a somewhat working rule of law - and if they do this, they do it pretty subtly. Examples from all across the spectrum: - Strong companies can and do force weak governments to adopt whatever policies they want; see e.g. tobacco companies and their fight against health warnings on cigarette boxes. Or private companies and their private armies - happened in the past (e.g. East India Company), happens today (why do you think people kill each other in Africa over tantalum they don't have technological capability to use?). - Lobbying you mentioned. Doesn't always happen, but happens frequently. - Various low-level deals and bribery on e.g. city scale. - Low-skilled jobs. Just talk to people who are stuck with those, especially in smaller cities. Employers can, and routinely do, make them do anything because they basically own them. So yeah, private companies are not like governments. They can't just go and coerce you to do something in the name of law. But they have lots of less direct ways to coerce people if they really want to. The job of the government is usually to make them not want to.

obscolescence 9y ago

The question was "is this good", not "could this be done in a worse way". > Russia and China Those use the US as an excuse. Of course, these entities are only convenient monoliths when it comes to pushing the interests of very small groups within them, not when a poor American or Russian or Chinese asks a wealthy one to share. Also, why is something done in secret and something done out in the open a zero sum game? I would think the opposite is the case, when you already have the infrastructure for 99.9% and only have to set the evil bit, that's a lot easier than doing it secretly when nobody else is doing it at all.