5 ms·
I think you are talking about enforcing different things? The thing to enforce, which the parent commenter described, seemed to be a 20% tax on AI profits of “b
by drdeca 4y ago
I think you are talking about enforcing different things? The thing to enforce, which the parent commenter described, seemed to be a 20% tax on AI profits of “big AI companies”, to be paid to AI safety research groups.
That doesn’t sound unenforceable to me. That’s just like, a tax on a kind of business.
- int_19h 4y agoThe end goal of giving money to AI safety research groups is presumably to come up with some definition of "safe AI" that will then have to be actually enforced. Otherwise it's just a sinecure.
- drdeca 4y agoIf the safety groups figure out how to do things in a way which we can be confident is safe, this would make it at least possible for the capabilities researchers to do things in those ways. I would imagine people would prefer to do things in safe ways all else being equal. So, if the safety researchers find safety methods which have small enough capabilities costs, then presumably the people who should use those methods, would tend to do so?
- int_19h 4y agoThat does nothing for the intentionally malicious actors.
- drdeca 4y agoBad humans taking over the world is still better than some inhuman alien optimization process taking over the world.
- int_19h 4y agoIt's not an either-or. Malicious actors will disregard the guardrails to achieve their objectives, but in the process, they will create that very "inhuman alien optimization process" and give it the keys.
- drdeca 4y agoFollowing the safety techniques should be helpful to the goals of most malicious actors, provided that they prefer being in control over an alien optimizer being in control? Granted, if the safety/alignment techniques have too large of a cost to capabilities/effectiveness, then said malicious actors might be willing to risk a greater chance of an alien optimizer gaining control if it also means a higher chance of them gaining control.