3 ms·
The problem is that it can't realistically be stopped. In terms of game theory, it's a prisoner's dilemma. All nations are incentivized to race ahead with AI, s
by cubefox 3y ago
The problem is that it can't realistically be stopped. In terms of game theory, it's a prisoner's dilemma. All nations are incentivized to race ahead with AI, since the benefits are enormous before they turn catastrophic. Moreover, international agreements (similar to a nuclear test treaty) can't be checked or enforced, since countries can just build AI supercomputers under ground where they can't be seen from satellites nor destroyed by rockets.
So the only hope is that the first organization which develops a superintelligence manages to align it with human values, or, alternatively, they manage to build a superintelligent "task AI" (non-agentic AI) which just follows instructions, and then use it to enforce the global stop in AI development until the alignment problem is solved.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago> All nations are incentivized to race ahead with AI But what's happening, to all appearances, is that it isn't "nations" driving this. It's commerce and the investor class. If AI development were de facto restricted to, e.g., the US Military and the Chinese military, that would slow everything down by years -- perhaps even longer than that -- and the most disruptive effects might never become manifest. I'll grant that AI research probably cannot be stopped at this point. But with Altman agitating for "regulations" it should really be apparent that the best form of regulation in this case is the ultimate one: A total ban on above-ground AI development.
- cubefox 3y agoGovernments can and do pay private companies to develop things. OpenAI would basically be a defense contractor with tons of funding. I don't see this slowing down AI development by a lot.