3 ms·

Cat 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

by dymk 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago
It's obviously false. Nuclear weapon proliferation has been largely prevented, for example. Many dangerous pathogens and lots of other things are not available to the public. Asserting inevitability is an old rhetorical technique; it's purposes are obvious. What I wonder is, why are you using it? It serves people who want this power and have something to gain, the people who control it. Why are you fighting their battle for them?
- dymk 4y ago
  You can’t make a nuclear weapon with an internet connection and a GPU. Rather than imply some secondary motive on my part, put a modicum of critical thinking into what makes a nuke different than an ML model.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  Nuclear materials have fundamental material chokepoints that make them far easier to control. - Most countries have little to no uranium deposits and so have to be able to find a uranium-producing ally willing to play ball. - Production of enriched fuel and R&D are both outrageously expensive, generally limiting them to state actors. - Enrichment has massive energy requirements and requires huge facilities, tipping off observers of what you're doing Despite all this and decades of strong anti-nuclear proliferation international agreements India, Pakistan, South Africa, Isreal, and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons in defiance of the UN and international law. In comparison the only real bottleneck in proliferation of AI is computing power - but the cost of running an LLM is a pittance compared to a nuclear weapons program. OpenAI has raised something like $11 billion in funding. A single new proposed US Department of Energy uranium enrichment plant is estimated to cost $10 billion just to build. I don't believe proliferation is inevitable but it's very possible that the genie is out of the bottle. You would have to convince the entire world that the risks are large enough to to warrant putting on the brakes, and the dangers of AI are much harder to explain than the dangers of nuclear weapons. And if rival countries cannot agree on regulation then we're just going to see a new arms race.
flangola7 4y ago
I'd rather try and fail than give up without a fight. I'm many things but I'm not a coward.
- dymk 4y ago
  Best of luck!

Cat 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

by dymk 4y ago

Cat 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

wolverine876 4y ago

It's obviously false. Nuclear weapon proliferation has been largely prevented, for example. Many dangerous pathogens and lots of other things are not available to the public. Asserting inevitability is an old rhetorical technique; it's purposes are obvious. What I wonder is, why are you using it? It serves people who want this power and have something to gain, the people who control it. Why are you fighting their battle for them?

dymk 4y ago
You can’t make a nuclear weapon with an internet connection and a GPU. Rather than imply some secondary motive on my part, put a modicum of critical thinking into what makes a nuke different than an ML model.
DoughnutHole 4y ago
Nuclear materials have fundamental material chokepoints that make them far easier to control. - Most countries have little to no uranium deposits and so have to be able to find a uranium-producing ally willing to play ball. - Production of enriched fuel and R&D are both outrageously expensive, generally limiting them to state actors. - Enrichment has massive energy requirements and requires huge facilities, tipping off observers of what you're doing Despite all this and decades of strong anti-nuclear proliferation international agreements India, Pakistan, South Africa, Isreal, and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons in defiance of the UN and international law. In comparison the only real bottleneck in proliferation of AI is computing power - but the cost of running an LLM is a pittance compared to a nuclear weapons program. OpenAI has raised something like $11 billion in funding. A single new proposed US Department of Energy uranium enrichment plant is estimated to cost $10 billion just to build. I don't believe proliferation is inevitable but it's very possible that the genie is out of the bottle. You would have to convince the entire world that the risks are large enough to to warrant putting on the brakes, and the dangers of AI are much harder to explain than the dangers of nuclear weapons. And if rival countries cannot agree on regulation then we're just going to see a new arms race.

flangola7 4y ago

I'd rather try and fail than give up without a fight. I'm many things but I'm not a coward.

dymk 4y ago
Best of luck!