4 ms·
Except that countries letting people freely use AIs unencumbered will quickly outcompete luddites. You cannot regulate progress.
by nickpp 4y ago
Except that countries letting people freely use AIs unencumbered will quickly outcompete luddites.
You cannot regulate progress.
- amelius 4y agoNo, the regulation will ensure a certain level of quality and will require a serious effort from AI makers. Also it ensures that the AI doesn't spread false information and destroys our country in the process.
- nickpp 4y agoI doubt we can uphold those standards even in people. If the last 4 years have proven anything, it is that we cannot agree what is true and what is false for a population. And to have that across different countries… impossible.
- lgas 4y agoRegulation can't ensure anything, it can only change incentives.
- swexbe 4y agoGood, the current incentives are pretty perverse.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y agoAny country allowing people and organizations to steal things from other countries outcompete luddites. Drop all treaties. You cannot regulate progress.
- anonylizard 4y agoThat's exactly what the US is doing with China. China isn't going to play fair in high-tech no matter what 'regulations' you come up with, so the solution is simple, decouple.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoProgress toward what?
- _heimdall 4y agoYou also can't explain why progress for the sake of progress is a good thing.
- nickpp 4y agoYou'll have to take that up with Mother Nature and its evolution & natural selection. She's the one who imprinted "progress" in our genes and I do not think we are far enough from our origins to overwrite that.
- ben_w 4y agoWhat evolution optimises for isn't what you'd call "good" if it came up in any other context. It's as much why covid happened as it is why we happened.
- _heimdall 4y agoComparing natural selection and human invention is a drastic over simplification. Meaningful change due to natural selection takes place over thousands of years of random genetic mutations and changing environmental conditions. Change due to human invention is happening on the scale of years or decades and is the result of us making decisions just because we can. Would you really like to compare the evolutionary change from species that walk on four legs eventually becoming bipedal to the change caused by industrialization or nuclear technology? The level of impact humans have managed to have on the world around us is massively different from any other species we're aware of. No other species appears to sit around making decisions that reshape large portions of the environment in a single generation. "Progress" in that sense is not genetically ingrained in us, it can't be if we're the first species to do this.
- loa_in_ 4y agoNature doesn't pursue progress. It fosters any (at least some) that might appear but it doesn't actively pursue it. If it did, there would be instinctual drive to seek out ionising radiation proportionally to the amount of offspring for particular species. To iterate as fast as possible and get any edge in selection.
- 4y ago
- swexbe 4y agoYou should still be able to use them freely. "Who profits" is what should be regulated. If this can't be mandated at a global level, autarky starts looking like a pretty good option.