5 ms·

I am afraid that this will just lead down the path to what https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/171

I am afraid that this will just lead down the path to what https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1718654143110512741 was mocking. We're dictating solutions to today's threats, leaving tomorrow to its own devices. But what will tomorrow bring? As Sam Altman warns in https://twitter.com/sama/status/1716972815960961174 https://twitter.com/sama/status/1716972815960961174, superhuman persuasion is likely to be next. What does that mean? We've already had the problem of social media echo chambers leading to extremism, and online influencers creating cult-like followings. https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-girls https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/mental-health-liberal-g... is a sober warning about the dangers to mental health from this. These are connected humans accidentally persuading each other. Now imagine AI being able to drive that intentionally to a particular political end. Then remember that China controls TikTok. Will Biden's order keep China from developing that capability? Will we develop tools to identify how that might be being actively used against us? I doubt both. Instead, we'll almost certainly get security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. But is unlikely to address the likely future problems that haven't materialized yet.

boppo1 3y ago
>security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. Yeah I think this is my biggest worry given it will enable incumbents to be even more dominant in our lives than bigtech already is (unless we get an AI plateau again real soon).
- ethanbond 3y ago
  And choosing not to regulate prevents that… how exactly?
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    By ensuring there is competition and alternatives that don't cost a million before you can even start training.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
      - czl 3y ago
        > Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. High barriers to entry however does prevent prevent competition and that does raise prices. > The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself. Was this not true about computers when they were new? What would have happened if early on similar laws were passed restricting computers?
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    Your question embeds a logical fallacy. You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent! To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      No, GP specifically said it “enables” it, not that it contributes to it. If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
      - RationalDino 3y ago
        When someone says that building ramps enables wheelchair users to get into buildings with stairs, would you be the person who argues that isn't actually enabling because they can just pay someone to carry them up the stairs? That clearly stupid argument exactly parallels what you are saying. Down to using the word "enables".
        ethanbond 3y ago
        It’s clearly not an exact parallel, because there’s an obvious answer to “not building ramps prevents mobility… how exactly?” Anyway no need to get into the meta argument here. If GP thinks regulation just increases the risk of centralization, I’m more interested in thinking through the pros and cons of that.
        RationalDino 3y ago
        If you're interested in that topic, reading through the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 is a good place to start.
czl 3y ago
> superhuman persuasion is likely to be next Some people already seem to have superhuman persuasion. AI can level the playing field for those that lack it and give all the ability to see through such persuasion.
- RationalDino 3y ago
  I am cautiously optimistic that this is indeed possible. But the kind of AI that can achieve it has to itself be capable of what it is helping defend us from. Which suggests that limiting the capabilities of AI in the name of AI safety is not a good idea.

boppo1 3y ago

>security theater leading to a regulatory moat. Which is almost certain to help profit margins at established AI companies. Yeah I think this is my biggest worry given it will enable incumbents to be even more dominant in our lives than bigtech already is (unless we get an AI plateau again real soon).

ethanbond 3y ago
And choosing not to regulate prevents that… how exactly?
- whelp_24 3y ago
  By ensuring there is competition and alternatives that don't cost a million before you can even start training.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
    - czl 3y ago
      > Lack of regulation doesn’t ensure competition nor low prices. High barriers to entry however does prevent prevent competition and that does raise prices. > The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself. Was this not true about computers when they were new? What would have happened if early on similar laws were passed restricting computers?
- RationalDino 3y ago
  Your question embeds a logical fallacy. You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent! To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    No, GP specifically said it “enables” it, not that it contributes to it. If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
    - RationalDino 3y ago
      When someone says that building ramps enables wheelchair users to get into buildings with stairs, would you be the person who argues that isn't actually enabling because they can just pay someone to carry them up the stairs? That clearly stupid argument exactly parallels what you are saying. Down to using the word "enables".
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        It’s clearly not an exact parallel, because there’s an obvious answer to “not building ramps prevents mobility… how exactly?” Anyway no need to get into the meta argument here. If GP thinks regulation just increases the risk of centralization, I’m more interested in thinking through the pros and cons of that.
        RationalDino 3y ago
        If you're interested in that topic, reading through the discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38072218 is a good place to start.

czl 3y ago

> superhuman persuasion is likely to be next Some people already seem to have superhuman persuasion. AI can level the playing field for those that lack it and give all the ability to see through such persuasion.

RationalDino 3y ago
I am cautiously optimistic that this is indeed possible. But the kind of AI that can achieve it has to itself be capable of what it is helping defend us from. Which suggests that limiting the capabilities of AI in the name of AI safety is not a good idea.