5 ms·

Open competition would still provide a better outcome for us, commoners, than a quiet race to supremacy by any one given team.

tomohelix 4y ago
Perhaps. I might be biased into thinking in terms of my own field. In the area I work in, progress is really slow, especially when compared to the IT field. Every new tech or product take more time and money to get validated than it took to discover or implement it. And even after it was deemed "safe", that new product still get regularly checked and reported on for years just in case something was missed in the initial vetting process. It is normal for something to get developed in 2 years but take twice or triple that time to enter production. So you can guess things are a bit more "safety-oriented" in my field. I guess I am just used to it and don't think much of all the stuff OpenAI did, since I think this stuff has legit physical dangers if not used properly. Not "implemented", just "used". As in a user can come into harm physically if they use the tech in some unintended ways. For example, it can encourage or even convince and aid suicides. Maybe I am wrong, but at least it makes sense to me when something that can cross the digital boundary into the physical health, it needs to be heavily regulated.
- sterlind 4y ago
  Many technologies can lead to physical harm by your standard. Cyberbullying can lead to suicide, but presumably you aren't worried about Discord and Twitter the same way. Moreover, would you have locked down social media with such safety regulations while it was in its infancy? Require a license to use Livejournal Social harms are real, but it seems implausible to me that ChatGPT could do much more psychological damage than a bully on Instagram. Also, heavy regulation tends to lead to regulatory capture. I don't trust any centralized entity with something this powerful.
  - phkahler 4y ago
    >> I don't trust any centralized entity with something this powerful. But then how can you trust the companies that make them? ;-) Groups of people self governing is an ancient and hard problem!
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Perhaps. Bullies don't scale, AI does.
  - gnramires 4y ago
    > Cyberbullying can lead to suicide, but presumably you aren't worried about Discord and Twitter the same way I think we have already safety mechanisms for human interaction: (1) We have human ethics, where we teach good values in school, and also parents are expected to relay good values; (2) We have laws and mechanisms to improve safety and responsibility -- bullying has consequences for the bully if found out. I think we need at least similar systems in AI. That's not to say they're ideal however. In fact, because we have full control over the creation of AI, i.e. we want to the position of Gods, we have extra responsibility. Literally how their mind is architectured is up to us, it's up to us to imbue things like compassion that most humans have instinctively, and up to us to imbue things like values and ethics that we have adopted culturally. From Orbital's "You Lot": "You are becoming Gods There's a new master of creation, and it's you (...) D'you think you are ready for that much power? You lot? You lot? (...) Go on, hands up, hands up anyone who thinks you've got it right Yeah, there's always one I can see you If you want the position of God, then you must accept the responsibility"
alwayslikethis 4y ago
Second this. Imagine a future where AI capabilities are as entrenched as internet or electricity today, except it's controlled by just one or a few companies, who reserve the right to deny you access, this time rather effectively because of advances in AI. At any moment they can deny you the ability to perform your work.
FeepingCreature 4y ago
Of course, unless open competition leads to sacrificing safety research which leads to the end of the world. Then commoners are also very much worse off.
naasking 4y ago
> Open competition would still provide a better outcome for us, commoners Speculative. Or it could kill a bunch of people. Or even everyone in some extreme scenarios, either willfully or accidentally.

tomohelix 4y ago

Perhaps. I might be biased into thinking in terms of my own field. In the area I work in, progress is really slow, especially when compared to the IT field. Every new tech or product take more time and money to get validated than it took to discover or implement it. And even after it was deemed "safe", that new product still get regularly checked and reported on for years just in case something was missed in the initial vetting process. It is normal for something to get developed in 2 years but take twice or triple that time to enter production. So you can guess things are a bit more "safety-oriented" in my field. I guess I am just used to it and don't think much of all the stuff OpenAI did, since I think this stuff has legit physical dangers if not used properly. Not "implemented", just "used". As in a user can come into harm physically if they use the tech in some unintended ways. For example, it can encourage or even convince and aid suicides. Maybe I am wrong, but at least it makes sense to me when something that can cross the digital boundary into the physical health, it needs to be heavily regulated.

sterlind 4y ago
Many technologies can lead to physical harm by your standard. Cyberbullying can lead to suicide, but presumably you aren't worried about Discord and Twitter the same way. Moreover, would you have locked down social media with such safety regulations while it was in its infancy? Require a license to use Livejournal Social harms are real, but it seems implausible to me that ChatGPT could do much more psychological damage than a bully on Instagram. Also, heavy regulation tends to lead to regulatory capture. I don't trust any centralized entity with something this powerful.
- phkahler 4y ago
  >> I don't trust any centralized entity with something this powerful. But then how can you trust the companies that make them? ;-) Groups of people self governing is an ancient and hard problem!
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Perhaps. Bullies don't scale, AI does.
- gnramires 4y ago
  > Cyberbullying can lead to suicide, but presumably you aren't worried about Discord and Twitter the same way I think we have already safety mechanisms for human interaction: (1) We have human ethics, where we teach good values in school, and also parents are expected to relay good values; (2) We have laws and mechanisms to improve safety and responsibility -- bullying has consequences for the bully if found out. I think we need at least similar systems in AI. That's not to say they're ideal however. In fact, because we have full control over the creation of AI, i.e. we want to the position of Gods, we have extra responsibility. Literally how their mind is architectured is up to us, it's up to us to imbue things like compassion that most humans have instinctively, and up to us to imbue things like values and ethics that we have adopted culturally. From Orbital's "You Lot": "You are becoming Gods There's a new master of creation, and it's you (...) D'you think you are ready for that much power? You lot? You lot? (...) Go on, hands up, hands up anyone who thinks you've got it right Yeah, there's always one I can see you If you want the position of God, then you must accept the responsibility"

alwayslikethis 4y ago

Second this. Imagine a future where AI capabilities are as entrenched as internet or electricity today, except it's controlled by just one or a few companies, who reserve the right to deny you access, this time rather effectively because of advances in AI. At any moment they can deny you the ability to perform your work.

FeepingCreature 4y ago

Of course, unless open competition leads to sacrificing safety research which leads to the end of the world. Then commoners are also very much worse off.

naasking 4y ago

> Open competition would still provide a better outcome for us, commoners Speculative. Or it could kill a bunch of people. Or even everyone in some extreme scenarios, either willfully or accidentally.