5 ms·
> "shut it all down" being the only course of action And how would we “shut it all down” in other countries? War? Economic sanctions? Authoritarian policing of
by robocat 4y ago
> "shut it all down" being the only course of action
And how would we “shut it all down” in other countries? War? Economic sanctions? Authoritarian policing of foreign states? Enforce worldwide limits on the power of GPUs and computers?
- lumenwrites 4y agoAll of the above (if necessary): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oM9pEezyCb4dCsuKq/pausing-ai-developments-isn-t-enough-we-need-to-shut-it-all-1 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oM9pEezyCb4dCsuKq/pausing-ai... Basically, the idea is that countries sign the agreement to stop the large training runs, and, if necessary, be willing to use conventional strikes on AI-training datacenters in the countries that refuse. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, hopefully it just becomes the fact of international politics that you can't build large AI-training datacenters anymore. If some country decides to start a war over this - the argument is that wars at least have some survivors, and an unaligned AI won't have any.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoWhy do unaligned AI not have any survivors?
- lumenwrites 4y agoBecause humans aren't powerful enough to completely exterminate each other (even a nuclear war wouldn't kill literally everyone in the world), but an unaligned AI, in the worst case scenario, could just kill everybody (to eliminate humans as a threat, or to use the atoms we're made out of for something else, or just as a side effect of doing whatever it actually wants to do). It could be powerful enough to do that, and have no reason not to.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoI don’t find it plausible in a highly intelligent system to do that. Small chance.
- digging 4y agoActually, it's an unknowable chance.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoImagine humanity is some random species of wildlife, or insects, and AI is humanity. As a "highly intelligent system", we have a long history of extincting animal species, and we're well on track to eventually extinct most of them, despite it's highly likely this will make Earth uninhabitable for us, ending with humanity dying off too. Why do you think AI can't casually extinct us, because it doesn't need us (or thinks it doesn't), and we're just in the way of whatever it is that it wants to do?
- dr_dshiv 4y agoWe know it will be more intelligent than us. As we get more intelligent we care more about these things (biodiversity, etc). Why wouldn’t AI?
- TeMPOraL 4y ago> As we get more intelligent we care more about these things (biodiversity, etc). Why wouldn’t AI? Well, we care for various reasons, major one being our own survival and comfort. Given what that means in practice, we'd be better off dead than having an AI care about us like we care about animals and plants.
- ChatGTP 4y agoWhat’s interesting to me is that it sounds “radical” but on the other hand, it’s probably not much more radical than going to war with a country over weapons of mass destruction which don’t exist, or to take oil. All things the USA has already done.
- pokepim 4y ago[dead]
- lhnz 4y agoThe argument that this is necessary isn't close to being convincing enough for governments to consider following through with such a drastic cause of action. And, the "AI-might-end-up-killing-everyone" community doesn't seem to be able to see this through other people's eyes in order to make an argument for this without belittling the other perspective. If other people change their minds, it probably won't be through persuasion but from catastrophe.
- jdminhbg 4y ago> if necessary, be willing to use conventional strikes on AI-training datacenters in the countries that refuse Why settle for the maybe-catastrophe of AGI when we can have the definitely-catastrophe of world war?
- gmerc 4y agoRight now? TSMC. That’s the bottleneck.
- jsemrau 4y agoHave a look at Bretton Woods system and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty I think we need something similar