5 ms·

Another big concern will be regulatory. It seems unlikely a couple billion people whose livelihood is significantly impacted will just chill as it happens? I t

Another big concern will be regulatory. It seems unlikely a couple billion people whose livelihood is significantly impacted will just chill as it happens? I think it’s unlikely, but no less likely than the compute issues mentioned.

knodi123 4y ago
So the research and development will just move over to a neighboring country? This isn't like the manhattan project. There are lots of people who know how to make this stuff, and they don't need rare volatile elements - just consumer hardware.
- pixl97 4y ago
  It depends if were talking 'Butlerian Jihad' levels of disruption here. And no, the big models require exabytes of processing power and time, so at least at the most extreme scales if nations started punching missiles in processor factories and data centers you'd slow top end AI projects way down.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    > It depends if were talking 'Butlerian Jihad' levels of disruption here. Yeah, but we weren't. We were talking about chatgpt and llms. Of course if the singularity arrives, all bets are off, all dominoes will topple, and the new world order will be hard to guess, if there even is one.
- flangola7 4y ago
  If it seems dire enough lethal military force might be used. If Russia and China think the US is about to have AI capable of absolute total global domination they may launch a preemptive strike. Maybe hypersonic cruise missiles at datacenters, maybe a full EMP or nuclear launch. (Swap countries around as desired.)
bloodyplonker22 4y ago
Isn't this a "concern" whenever a new technology comes out? ie: the internet? Yet, due to how slowly government moves and how hard new technology is to understand for governments, it is barely a concern.
HervalFreire 4y ago
The US is very capitalistic. You may get regulation in France, but not the US. The Corporate desire for profit will overshadow the livelihood of billions. It's been this way in the US since forever. Look what happened to the corporation that caused the Opioid epidemic. Nothing, they profited.
- Symmetry 4y ago
  A more important factor than that, I think, is that the national security establishment in the US is the part of government most concerned with AI right now and they mostly see it as a matter of competition with China.
- philwelch 4y ago
  If that was true, the US would be producing orders of magnitude more nuclear energy than it is today. In reality many sectors of the US economy, such as housing, are utterly crippled by regulation.
  - Symmetry 4y ago
    That's not entirely true. Back in the 1970s when we tightened up regulation the companies operating nuclear power plants in the US were selling power onto the grid on a cost plus basis. That is, they'd be paid for their expenses plus a reasonable percentage on top of that. And there were regulators looking at their expenses to make sure they were reasonable. But when they, together with environmental activists, were able to get laws passed that drastically increased the cost of running a nuclear plant the regulators couldn't say no. So their costs increased, but then their profits increased as well through the magic of cost-plus contracts.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      That sounds like a classic example of regulatory capture, with incumbent nuclear power plant operators managing to serve their own interests and raise a regulatory moat against anyone coming after them to build more nuclear power plants.

knodi123 4y ago

So the research and development will just move over to a neighboring country? This isn't like the manhattan project. There are lots of people who know how to make this stuff, and they don't need rare volatile elements - just consumer hardware.

pixl97 4y ago
It depends if were talking 'Butlerian Jihad' levels of disruption here. And no, the big models require exabytes of processing power and time, so at least at the most extreme scales if nations started punching missiles in processor factories and data centers you'd slow top end AI projects way down.
- knodi123 4y ago
  > It depends if were talking 'Butlerian Jihad' levels of disruption here. Yeah, but we weren't. We were talking about chatgpt and llms. Of course if the singularity arrives, all bets are off, all dominoes will topple, and the new world order will be hard to guess, if there even is one.
flangola7 4y ago
If it seems dire enough lethal military force might be used. If Russia and China think the US is about to have AI capable of absolute total global domination they may launch a preemptive strike. Maybe hypersonic cruise missiles at datacenters, maybe a full EMP or nuclear launch. (Swap countries around as desired.)

bloodyplonker22 4y ago

Isn't this a "concern" whenever a new technology comes out? ie: the internet? Yet, due to how slowly government moves and how hard new technology is to understand for governments, it is barely a concern.

HervalFreire 4y ago

The US is very capitalistic. You may get regulation in France, but not the US. The Corporate desire for profit will overshadow the livelihood of billions. It's been this way in the US since forever. Look what happened to the corporation that caused the Opioid epidemic. Nothing, they profited.

Symmetry 4y ago
A more important factor than that, I think, is that the national security establishment in the US is the part of government most concerned with AI right now and they mostly see it as a matter of competition with China.
philwelch 4y ago
If that was true, the US would be producing orders of magnitude more nuclear energy than it is today. In reality many sectors of the US economy, such as housing, are utterly crippled by regulation.
- Symmetry 4y ago
  That's not entirely true. Back in the 1970s when we tightened up regulation the companies operating nuclear power plants in the US were selling power onto the grid on a cost plus basis. That is, they'd be paid for their expenses plus a reasonable percentage on top of that. And there were regulators looking at their expenses to make sure they were reasonable. But when they, together with environmental activists, were able to get laws passed that drastically increased the cost of running a nuclear plant the regulators couldn't say no. So their costs increased, but then their profits increased as well through the magic of cost-plus contracts.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    That sounds like a classic example of regulatory capture, with incumbent nuclear power plant operators managing to serve their own interests and raise a regulatory moat against anyone coming after them to build more nuclear power plants.