3 ms·
This is missing a key argument from the AI-cautious, which is that we shouldn't "pause AI development", but rather "pause public deployment". The case for only
by hudon 3y ago
This is missing a key argument from the AI-cautious, which is that we shouldn't "pause AI development", but rather "pause public deployment". The case for only pausing the public deployment solves the "China problem" because we could continue development. On top of that, it would be harder for China to fast-follow if there isn't any public deployment of what is being researched and built.
edit: I'm realizing there may be different classes of people who want to regulate AI in some capacity. I'm basing myself off of this train of thought from the Center for Humane Technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ
- sebzim4500 3y agoI think most AI doomers (I don't mean the term as an insult) think that would be worse than the status quo. The people who think that the biggest risk of AI is that it won't hire black people or something would probably love the idea, though.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI don't think you are accurately representing the views of the 'doomers' in the sense that it is much more about development
- hudon 3y agoMaybe we're not talking about the same people, then. I am repeating almost verbatim what the folks at the Centre for Humane Technology say here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ
- whimsicalism 3y agoYeah, briefly perusing the founders wiki page, I perceive this as standard, east coast chattering class non-profit take on social media (fake news, it’s hurting our kids), but the AI pause people are coming from a considerably different perspective.
- spiderice 3y agoIsn't pausing public deployment essentially the same as pausing development, given that it cuts of the company's revenue from their research? I'm sure some will continue. But way less.