9 ms·
We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear material
by nwienert 4y ago
We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better.
In general the liberal position of progress = good is wrong in many cases, and I'll be thankful to see AI get neutered. If anything treat it like nuclear arms and have the world come up with heavy regulation.
Not even touching the fact it is quite literal copyright laundering and a massive wealth transfer to the top (two things we pass laws protecting against often), but the danger it poses to society is worth a blanket ban. The upsides aren't there.
- volkk 4y ago> You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better. ha, the big difference is that this whole list can actually affect the ultra wealthy. AI has the power to make them entirely untouchable one day, so good luck seeing any kind of regulation happen here.
- realce 4y agoSo everyone should have a hydrogen bomb at the lowest price the market can provide, that's your actual opinion?
- volkk 4y agoi dont know what the hell you're talking about
- astrange 4y agoI do not think the reason for nuclear weapons treaties is that they can blow up "the ultra wealthy". Is that why the USSR signed them?
- volkk 4y agoyou can replace ultra wealthy with powerful. same point stands. the only things that become regulated heavily are things that can affect the people that live at the top, whether its the obscenely rich, or the despots in various countries.
- smartmic 4y agoThat's right. It is not hard to imagine similarly disastrous GPT/AI "plug-ins" with access to purchasing, manufacturing, robotics, bioengineering, genetic manipulation resources, etc. The only way forward for humanity is self-restraint through regulation. Which of course gives no guarantee that the cat will be let out of the bag (edit: or earlier events such as nuclear war or climate catastrophe will kill us off sooner)
- chatmasta 4y agoWhy not regulate the genetic manipulation and bioengineering? It seems almost irrelevant whether it's an AI who's doing the work, since the physical risks would generally exist regardless of whether a human or AI is conducting the research. And in fact, in some contexts, you could even make the argument that it's safer in the hands of an AI (e.g., I'd rather Gain of Function research be performed by robotic AI on an asteroid rather than in a lab in Wuhan run by employees who are vulnerable to human error).
- bobthepanda 4y agoWe already do; China jailed somebody for gene editing babies unethically for HIV resistance. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, and regulate two things.
- saulpw 4y agoWe can't regulate specific things fast enough. It takes years of political infighting (this is intentional! government and democracy are supposed to move slowly so as to break things slowly) to get even partial regulation. Meanwhile every day brings another AI feature that could irreversibly bring about the end of humanity or society or democracy or ...
- dymk 4y agoCat is already out of the bag, regulation will do nothing to even slow down the inevitable pan-genocidal AI, _if_ such a thing can be created
- andsoitis 4y ago> You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better. All those examples put us in physical danger to the point of death.
- serverholic 4y ago[dead]
- btmiller 4y agoRisks to physical danger evolve all the time. It’s not a big leap from AI generated this script to a fatal bug is nefariously hidden in the AI generated library in-use by mission critical services (e.g. cars, medical devices, missiles, fertilizers).
- chunes3 4y agoAI is now poised to make bureaucratic decisions. Bureaucracy puts people in physical danger every day. I've had medical treatments a doctor said I need denied by my insurance, for example.
- dustymcp 4y agoFor somebody from another country this sounds insane..
- nwienert 4y agoOthers siblings have good replies, but also, we regulate without physical danger all the damn time. See airlines, traffic control, medical equipment, government services, but also we regulate ads, TV, financial services, crypto. I mean we regulate so many “tech” things for the benefit of society this is a losing argument to take. There’s plenty of room to argue the elsewhere but the idea that we don’t regulate tech if it’s not immediately a physical danger is crazy. Even global warming is a huge one, down to housing codes and cars etc. It’s a potential physical danger hundreds of years out, and we’re freaking out about it. Yet AI had the chance to really do much more damage within a much shorter time frame. We also just regulate soft social stability things all over, be it nudity, noise, etc.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"We have a ton of protection laws around all sorts of dangerous technology, this is a super naive take. You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better." As technology advances, such prohibitions are going to become less and less effective. Tech is constantly getting smaller, cheaper and easier for a random person or group of people to acquire, no matter what the laws say. Add in the nearly infinite profit and power motive to get hold of strong AI and it'll almost impossible to stop, as governments, billionaires, and megacorps all over the world will see it as a massive competitive disadvantage not to have one. Make laws against it in one place, your competitor in another part of the world without such laws or their effective enforcement will dominate you before long.
- arvinsim 4y ago> Add in the nearly infinite profit and power motive to get hold of strong AI and it'll almost impossible to stop, as governments, billionaires, and megacorps all over the world will see it as a massive competitive disadvantage not to have one. I wouldn't say that this is an additional reason. I would say that this is the primary reason that overrides the reasonable concerns that people have for AI. We are human after all.
- wolverine876 4y agoIt's a baseless assertion, often repeated. Reptition isn't evidence. Is there any evidence? There's lots of evidence of our ability to control the development, use and proliferation of technology.
- pmoriarty 4y agoHave laws stopped music piracy? Have laws stopped copyright infringement? Both have happened at a rampant pace once the technology to easily copy music and copyrighted content became easily available and virtually free. The same is likely to happen to every technology that becomes cheap enough to make and easy enough to use -- which is where technology as a whole is trending towards. Laws against technology manufacture/use are only effective while the barrier to entry remains high.
- andrepd 4y ago> massive wealth transfer to the top (thing we pass laws protecting against often) If only.
- micromacrofoot 4y agohow do you regulate something that many people can already run on their home gpu? how much software has ever been successfully banned from distribution after release?
- dustymcp 4y agoThey do like to try :(
- judge2020 4y ago> You can't buy tons of weapon technology, nuclear materials, aerosolized compounds, pesticides. These are all highly regulated and illegal pieces of technology for the better. Only because we know the risks and issues with them. OP is talking about furthering technology, which is quite literally "discovering new things"; regulations on furthering technology (outside of literal nuclear weapons) would have to be along the lines of "you must submit your idea for approval to the US government before using it in a non-academic context if could be interpreted as industry-changing or inventing", which means anyone with ideas will just move to a country that doesn't hinder its own technological progress.
- taco_philips 4y ago[dead]
- sdenton4 4y agoHuman review boards and restrictions on various dangerous biological research exist explicitly to limit damage from furthering lines of research which might be dangerous.
- judge2020 4y agoThose seem to be explicitly for actual research papers and whatnot, and are largely voluntary; it’s not mandated by the government.