6 ms·
The dangerous thing about AI regulation is that countries with fewer regulations will develop AI at a faster pace. It's a frightening thought: The countries wi
by TekMol 3y ago
The dangerous thing about AI regulation is that countries with fewer regulations will develop AI at a faster pace.
It's a frightening thought: The countries with the least regulations will have GAI first. What will that lead to?
When AI can control a robot that looks like a human, can walk, grab, work, is more intelligent than a human and can reproduce itself - what will the country with the least regulations that created it do with it?
- blibble 3y ago> The dangerous thing about AI regulation is that countries with fewer regulations will develop AI at a faster pace. "but countries without {child labour laws, environment regulation, a minimum wage, slavery ban} will out compete us!"
- TekMol 3y agoThat could indeed be: https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china
- kerkeslager 3y agoIt will always be more expensive to care about human suffering than to not. So maybe competing within capitalism isn't the only thing that matters.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoLargely true in sectors that are encumbered by those rules. US has effectively no rare earth mines due to environmental impact, labor intensive manufacturing all left... Of course it could be worth it though, pretty easy to argue it has been.
- littlestymaar 3y ago> labor intensive manufacturing all left... It has also been leaving China for a while. You cannot hope to compete with the poorest country on labor cost, it's not a matter of regulation (well unless we're talking about capital control, but it's a completely different topic)
- bpodgursky 3y agoDoes it feel as ridiculous if you s/ai/nuclear weapons/? The people worried about AI are worried that the first country that achieves ASI will achieve strategic dominance equivalent to the US as of 1946.
- eastbound 3y agoHeh. US’ strategic dominance is not due to nuclear weapons.
- justrealist 3y agoUh. That's definitely a statement. Can you tell me with a straight face that China's actions in the Pacific are not impacted by the US strategic nuclear arsenal?
- littlestymaar 3y agoDoes Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Being a nuclear power is something shared by a few, but the US dominance has no equal. It's pretty clear that the US leadership mostly comes from its economic power, which it used to derive from its industrial strength and is now more reliant on its technological superiority (since it has sold its industry to China, which may end up as a very literal execution of the famous quote from Lenin about capitalists selling the rope to hang them).
- ben_w 3y ago> Does Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Or even the Russian Federation, which may be a better comparison: I think it was only the USA and the USSR (from whom modern Russia inherited all the weapons) who decided to fight over arsenal size well beyond the point of MAD, rather than keep to the cheapest deterrent against a first strike. That said, IMO the USA's strategic dominance between the end of WW2 and the fall of the USSR was significantly influenced by them having nukes, even though they didn't use them and I think they had more than they needed for mere deterrence — it mattered then more than now.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoWhen the US crafts regulation the world follows or is sanctioned. See: drug scheduling.
- TekMol 3y agoThen why couldn't the US prevent nuclear weapons from spreading around the world? https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/nuclear-warheads-by-country-1945-2022/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/nuclear-warheads-by-coun...
- saghm 3y agoI mean, the animated chart shows that the US consistently had a couple orders of magnitude more nukes than any other country besides USSR/Russia. I'm not sure this makes the point you think it's making.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tensor 3y agoSeems like it makes the point perfectly well. You are implying that smaller countries have fewer nukes because of US sanctions, but it could easily also be that those countries are simply smaller. Where it mattered, the US's main enemy, the US regulation did nothing to stop Russia from building as many nukes as they wanted to. Also, the US has significantly less power worldwide than it did for most of that chart. Today, arguably, China exerts as much power as the US. American's always love to brag about how exceptional the US is, but often that isn't as true as they think and certainly won't be true for the long run. Long term planning needs to avoid such arrogance.
- saghm 3y agoSmaller countries like China and India? Population-wise they're larger, and area-wise they're not two orders of magnitude smaller. My point is that the chart doesn't really show nukes "spreading around the world" but concentrated almost entirely in two countries. Maybe the US policy did nothing to help it, but for all we know there would have been plenty of other countries with thousands of nukes as well without it. I'm not arguing that the policy was effective or not, just that I don't see how that chart is enough evidence alone to conclude one way or another.
- phh 3y agoAlso the countries where the highest level of standardization imposed by law will see highest AI use in SMBs, where most of the growth comes from.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoYes, a frightening thought, but it sounds like a movie script: Somehow people smart enough to build something fantastical and seemingly dangerous, but not smart enough to build in protections and controls. It's a trope, not reality. And GAI is still speculation.
- daniel_reetz 3y agoCommercially, this is true. But governments have a long history of developing technologies (think nuclear/surveillance/etc) that fall under significant regulation.
- cpill 3y agoI guess they will just unplug it? the fact that they need large amounts of electricity, which is not trivial to make, makes them very vulnerable. power is usually the first thing to go in a war. not to mention there is no machine that self replicates. full humanoid robots are going to have an immense support burden the same way that cars do with complex supply chains. I guess this is the reason nature didn't evolve robots
- realce 3y agoThis neglects both basic extrapolation and basic introspection.
- cpill 3y agoThat is exactly what I'm accusing you of. The burden of proof is on you, so by all mean extrapolate all the way to our extinction.
- concordDance 3y ago"Just unplug it" works only if you realize that the AGI is working against your interests. If its at least human level intelligent it's going to realize that you will try doing that and it will only actually make it clear it wants to kill you when there's nothing you can do about it.
- cpill 3y agoOK, outline how we get to that situation?
- concordDance 3y agoYou're asking how an above human intelligence might attempt a takeover? Or are you asking why it might attempt to do so?
- tim333 3y agoProbably not. The countries that are furthest ahead seem to be the US, China, maybe a bit in the UK. The US will probably win in spite of being more regulated than China, as usual for most tech.