4 ms·

> We had a lot of warning about climate change, chose economic growth anyway The climate changes with or without humans. That gigantic dynamo in the sky has cy

> We had a lot of warning about climate change, chose economic growth anyway The climate changes with or without humans. That gigantic dynamo in the sky has cycles longer than recorded history. The climate models (many of which forecast doom in 20 years or so) fail to have predictive value. Economic growth has proven to be good for human health on a whole...assuming the wealth is distributed & not concentrated. > 1. "we found 40,000 chemical weapons overnight by flipping a 'minimise harm' to 'maximise harm Governments & Corporations have been harming humans for a long time. Positivist plausible deniability is a common meme..."it's not proven unsafe so that means it's safe" while often omitting data which proves something is unsafe. The problems lie with governments & corporations that control the regulatory apparatus...not rogue actors. > 2. Bing chat threatening it's users almost immediately All the more reason to have open source options & freedom to choose another model. > 3. All the stuff the red teams found so OpenAI could prevent them before chatGPT went live Yet here they are wanting regulation...which conveniently would entrench their market position. If we demand that the companies which created the "harmful" ai nationalize their technology or open source their technology & data for public inspection, we would probably see these corporations change their positions on this issue. > Conversely you don't need an AGI to exist for some idiot to be convinced of a bad idea that gets nukes launched anyway These idiots already send radioactive munitions into combat areas via depleted Uranium. The lone madman is not the problem...governments & powerful corporations run by psychopaths is a far greater danger. Do we want to give these powerful psychopaths sole control over AI?

ben_w 3y ago
> The climate changes with or without humans. That gigantic dynamo in the sky has cycles longer than recorded history. The climate models (many of which forecast doom in 20 years or so) fail to have predictive value. Economic growth has proven to be good for human health on a whole...assuming the wealth is distributed & not concentrated. Thanks for proving my point about us ignoring risks because we want money. > Do we want to give these powerful psychopaths sole control over AI? Leading question; Of course not. Here's the thing: The Venn diagram of "sociopaths" and the "the government" is not a circle. Making an open-source model means all the sociopaths get an open source AI you have no control over.
- briantakita 3y ago
  > Thanks for proving my point about us ignoring risks because we want money. I don't see how your point has been proven...when I stated that the climate always changes, with or without humans. It would change our stance to mitigation instead of a delusion that we can avoid these climatic impacts to any meaningful degree. Climate change is going to happen no matter how much CO2 we sequester & even if we block out the sun. Don't get me wrong, I expect the climate to drastically change as we are heading into a period of a grand solar minimum, which leads to erratic solar & terrestrial activity, given that the Magnetosphere is underpowered & Earth is less shielded from Cosmic Radiation & CMEs. The climate is changing, has always been changing, & always will be changing. The climate has never been static. Sequestering too much CO2 could cause ecological damage, as plants rely on CO2 for food. As for blocking out the sun...well, I hope one does not need much imagination to grasp the impacts on life it would have. In short, interventions often have unintended consequences, particularly when the operating models are incorrect. > Leading question; Of course not. > Making an open-source model means all the sociopaths get an open source AI you have no control over. I'm operating under the assumption that Psychopaths & Sociopaths are attracted to positions of dominance, meaning Government, Political Influence, and large economic institutions such as Banks & Corporations. Distributing power provides less leverage for psychopaths & sociopaths. Open Source AI provides choice & mitigation strategies while closed source & regulated AI leads to leveraged control which would be a focal point for the psychopaths & sociopaths to be attracted to & leverage. Given the atrocious state of political affairs & the extreme concentration of Psychopaths with political power, I don't see we can avoid an abusive regulatory regime with such a critical piece of technology. I would have no power over a regulatory process, but a regulatory process would have power over me & my ability to mitigate any dangers that can be caused by people abusing AI. A long wolf in a basement will not have enough compute power to cause major problems using AI. A corporation or a government, in charge of the regulatory apparatus is far more likely to cause major problems. If a lone wolf causes problems with AI, law enforcement will move in & shut down the operation. If a politically connected corporation, bank, or the government that controls the regulatory apparatus causes problems with AI, then there are no other options than to use the "approved" problematic AI systems or to "illegally" mitigate the problematic AI systems...

ben_w 3y ago

> The climate changes with or without humans. That gigantic dynamo in the sky has cycles longer than recorded history. The climate models (many of which forecast doom in 20 years or so) fail to have predictive value. Economic growth has proven to be good for human health on a whole...assuming the wealth is distributed & not concentrated. Thanks for proving my point about us ignoring risks because we want money. > Do we want to give these powerful psychopaths sole control over AI? Leading question; Of course not. Here's the thing: The Venn diagram of "sociopaths" and the "the government" is not a circle. Making an open-source model means all the sociopaths get an open source AI you have no control over.

briantakita 3y ago
> Thanks for proving my point about us ignoring risks because we want money. I don't see how your point has been proven...when I stated that the climate always changes, with or without humans. It would change our stance to mitigation instead of a delusion that we can avoid these climatic impacts to any meaningful degree. Climate change is going to happen no matter how much CO2 we sequester & even if we block out the sun. Don't get me wrong, I expect the climate to drastically change as we are heading into a period of a grand solar minimum, which leads to erratic solar & terrestrial activity, given that the Magnetosphere is underpowered & Earth is less shielded from Cosmic Radiation & CMEs. The climate is changing, has always been changing, & always will be changing. The climate has never been static. Sequestering too much CO2 could cause ecological damage, as plants rely on CO2 for food. As for blocking out the sun...well, I hope one does not need much imagination to grasp the impacts on life it would have. In short, interventions often have unintended consequences, particularly when the operating models are incorrect. > Leading question; Of course not. > Making an open-source model means all the sociopaths get an open source AI you have no control over. I'm operating under the assumption that Psychopaths & Sociopaths are attracted to positions of dominance, meaning Government, Political Influence, and large economic institutions such as Banks & Corporations. Distributing power provides less leverage for psychopaths & sociopaths. Open Source AI provides choice & mitigation strategies while closed source & regulated AI leads to leveraged control which would be a focal point for the psychopaths & sociopaths to be attracted to & leverage. Given the atrocious state of political affairs & the extreme concentration of Psychopaths with political power, I don't see we can avoid an abusive regulatory regime with such a critical piece of technology. I would have no power over a regulatory process, but a regulatory process would have power over me & my ability to mitigate any dangers that can be caused by people abusing AI. A long wolf in a basement will not have enough compute power to cause major problems using AI. A corporation or a government, in charge of the regulatory apparatus is far more likely to cause major problems. If a lone wolf causes problems with AI, law enforcement will move in & shut down the operation. If a politically connected corporation, bank, or the government that controls the regulatory apparatus causes problems with AI, then there are no other options than to use the "approved" problematic AI systems or to "illegally" mitigate the problematic AI systems...