5 ms·

You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.

by Yiin 3y ago

ChatGTP 3y ago
This argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch from advancement to mitigation, international bodies co-operate. Things would probably be ok.
- barbariangrunge 3y ago
  …see: nuclear weapons
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Yeah, what about them? Sounds like you're placing all your hope in apathy, good luck with that.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > what about them? Are nuclear weapons not "harmful or a risk to humanity"?
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        I think it's an over simplification an unwise comparison. Everyone keeps bringing up Russia and China...they like nuclear weapons because they give them power. AI can take it away, especially if a super intelligent AI was to come into being. Have you ever noticed how dictators like to be in control? If they actually are aware there is little chance they'd be able to control these things, they're much less likely to want them to exist. It's just not the same type of problem. The only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire. This same line of reasoning is why Hinton thinks we might be able to slow things down with an international agreement, because no one wants to see things spiral into chaos. No one wins that, maybe not even the AIs.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire I think the previous comment's point was this. You said "if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful...[you] don't think other countries will be...eager to deploy it" [1]. The comment responding to you said there is no precedent for that. Before you get super-intelligent humanity-destroying AI you may get merely-intelligent enemy-destroying AI. If the second evolves into the first, and we don't know when, everyone is incentivized to develop the second out of military necessity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720159
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        I don't think this is true, if international co-operation can happen, not everyone will try to build these systems. My point is, everyone sits on the internet and screams but Russia, but China, but no one really knows what they think about the situation because no serious discussions have begun. I did see an interview with Geoffrey Hinton who says that he can see Chinese researchers are concerned, he reads it in mailing lists. In my opinion that is a good start because again, I don't think the CCP is stupid and they also have a lot of influence in the world. My point is, trying to do nothing and maintaining the status quo won't end well either. I think most people have just given up, climate change now this, it's too much for people.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if international co-operation can happen That’s the point. For a system such as this, it cannot. That’s just reality. It gives advantage to have it, particularly when others don’t. Its development happens in silence, making enforcement uncertain. And you don’t want to get into a shooting match without it when your enemy does.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        So just sit back and hope for the best?
- npteljes 3y ago
  I think that other countries will happily explore the AI topic further, independent from the US. Regarding stupidity and hope, see how well we're doing with climate change, or environmental regulations.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    I think instead of being pessimistic about the inevitability of disasters, we should try and prevent them. We're doing better than nothing about climate change, and we can keep trying to do more even though the damage is already great.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      I think these are separate concerns. On one hand, yes, we should try to do what we can. On the other, when talking about things like AI development, we shouldn't be as naive to expect that everyone will play nice.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      I too am surprised by the apathy angle on this forum. "Nothing can be done, oh well..." I guess this is when humans do actually lose their humanity and go extinct, if we just give up in the face of challenges, we're done.

You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.

by Yiin 3y ago

You are talking as if USA regulations apply to the whole world.

This argument goes back and forwards forever, but if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful or a risk to humanity, I don't think other countries will be just immediately eager to deploy it, do you? People aren't stupid. Humans generally want to live and hope their children flourish and not be destroyed by some type of horrific event. Even...c..cc.communists. If enough top researchers agree of the dangers, and switch from advancement to mitigation, international bodies co-operate. Things would probably be ok.

barbariangrunge 3y ago
…see: nuclear weapons
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Yeah, what about them? Sounds like you're placing all your hope in apathy, good luck with that.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > what about them? Are nuclear weapons not "harmful or a risk to humanity"?
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      I think it's an over simplification an unwise comparison. Everyone keeps bringing up Russia and China...they like nuclear weapons because they give them power. AI can take it away, especially if a super intelligent AI was to come into being. Have you ever noticed how dictators like to be in control? If they actually are aware there is little chance they'd be able to control these things, they're much less likely to want them to exist. It's just not the same type of problem. The only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire. This same line of reasoning is why Hinton thinks we might be able to slow things down with an international agreement, because no one wants to see things spiral into chaos. No one wins that, maybe not even the AIs.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > only thing we have in common here is they can both be dangerous and cause a lot of harm, but so can fire I think the previous comment's point was this. You said "if AI does indeed turn out to be harmful...[you] don't think other countries will be...eager to deploy it" [1]. The comment responding to you said there is no precedent for that. Before you get super-intelligent humanity-destroying AI you may get merely-intelligent enemy-destroying AI. If the second evolves into the first, and we don't know when, everyone is incentivized to develop the second out of military necessity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36720159
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        I don't think this is true, if international co-operation can happen, not everyone will try to build these systems. My point is, everyone sits on the internet and screams but Russia, but China, but no one really knows what they think about the situation because no serious discussions have begun. I did see an interview with Geoffrey Hinton who says that he can see Chinese researchers are concerned, he reads it in mailing lists. In my opinion that is a good start because again, I don't think the CCP is stupid and they also have a lot of influence in the world. My point is, trying to do nothing and maintaining the status quo won't end well either. I think most people have just given up, climate change now this, it's too much for people.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if international co-operation can happen That’s the point. For a system such as this, it cannot. That’s just reality. It gives advantage to have it, particularly when others don’t. Its development happens in silence, making enforcement uncertain. And you don’t want to get into a shooting match without it when your enemy does.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        So just sit back and hope for the best?
npteljes 3y ago
I think that other countries will happily explore the AI topic further, independent from the US. Regarding stupidity and hope, see how well we're doing with climate change, or environmental regulations.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I think instead of being pessimistic about the inevitability of disasters, we should try and prevent them. We're doing better than nothing about climate change, and we can keep trying to do more even though the damage is already great.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    I think these are separate concerns. On one hand, yes, we should try to do what we can. On the other, when talking about things like AI development, we shouldn't be as naive to expect that everyone will play nice.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    I too am surprised by the apathy angle on this forum. "Nothing can be done, oh well..." I guess this is when humans do actually lose their humanity and go extinct, if we just give up in the face of challenges, we're done.