4 ms·

> "Stop" is not regulatory capture. "Stop" is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head. Unless your solution anticipates a planet wide GULAG system

> "Stop" is not regulatory capture. "Stop" is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head. Unless your solution anticipates a planet wide GULAG system run by a global government your "stop" is infeasible.

maeil 3y ago
If tomorrow TSMC, NVIDIA and ASML get destroyed in the next 9/11, it's "stopped". It's completely possible.
- topspin 3y ago
  Fantasies, bordering on threats.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Of course it's a threat. Civilians doing that would be bad. But governments do much the same via military intervention on a regular basis, hence Yudkowsky talking about airstrikes that one time.
  - maeil 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting to do that, I'm just showing that it's incredibly possible. You could also go with "Tomorrow a massive storm strikes the Netherlands and huge earthquakes striking Taiwan and the US Westcoast", if you have emotional objections to my first example.
- Maken 3y ago
  It's delayed at best.
  - maeil 3y ago
    Incredibly delayed, giving at least decades to figure things out.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  I think current hardware already produced till now is either enough to get us to AGI, or it is very far away. I don't believe AGI is 30 years away. It is either very near or more than 1000s of years away.
  - maeil 3y ago
    The sum of all hardware produced, sure. But the amount of hardware a single player currently posseses? Doubtful.
timmytokyo 3y ago
His solution -- assuming it's the same as the one proposed by Yudkowsky, who he quotes -- is launching air strikes against data centers hosting AI computation. So yeah, imaginary.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Ironically, it seems the only way to stop someone from building an omnipotent AI that could destroy the world is to build an omnipotent AI under your control faster than any of the people you need to destroy. If you believe in that sort of thing.
  - jstanley 3y ago
    The only thing that can stop a bad guy with AI is a good guy with AI.
    - calgoo 3y ago
      AI's for everyone!!!! It's actually a scare but possible future. Everyone has to carry personal security AI that you rent from some Corpo, and if you don't you will be endlessly hacked and harassed in IRL just like we are online these days.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Heh, sounds like we're reading Diamond Age again.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Or possibly just not allow anyone to accumulate enough compute power, given that even the largest model so far still isn't that. Hence "if you're not willing to go as far as air strikes, you were never serious" or however he phrased it.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    This is just the plot of War Games (1983).
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
"Stop" might be possible if doing AI is expensive enough like say biotech. Currently it is in the limit of being expensive(costing few hundred thousands to few million for state of the art model), but it is very likely to change in near future that will change as even currently most of the cost comes not from energy of computation, but from expensive NVIDIA hardware.
lewhoo 3y ago
That might be true but there's no way of knowing for sure. Planet wide gulag system(a colorful and a bit wrong name for prisons) already exists and is pretty aligned on topics like killing fellow humans as a result of conscious, deliberate action. I find Max Tegmark's argument pretty convincing. We seem to agree to "STOP" on things like genetically modifying ourselves at conception or birth or whatever to gain X or Y and the one loud case of violating that agreement came from China and resulted in a ticket to the gulag. Just ask chatgpt to give you examples of fields where further research was deemed too risky and was ceased.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Unlike for AI, in those fields we do not need to stack endless hypotheses on top of each other to arrive at something bad (and even then some prohibitions are tenuous in their reasoning at best).
  - lewhoo 3y ago
    I don't know about that. Cloning/modifying humans has potentially so much benefit and yet we seem to stack hypotheses on top of it and conclude it's not worth it. There is also a lot to be said about all the hypotheses of killing all the Hitlers preemptively. I think that whatever we do, we usually arrive at a bit modified trolley problem and try to go from there. We really should never expect that the one particular route that we choose carries all the benefits and the other all the downsides.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      My point was more that it really isn't stretching anything to say: if something bad gets into human reproduction that has unfortunate effects. We can observe that already. So at least the risk case doesn't rely on a lot of hypotheses that might turn out wrong. Whether or not all regulations there are good or optimal is then a separate point again.
      - lewhoo 3y ago

maeil 3y ago

If tomorrow TSMC, NVIDIA and ASML get destroyed in the next 9/11, it's "stopped". It's completely possible.

topspin 3y ago
Fantasies, bordering on threats.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Of course it's a threat. Civilians doing that would be bad. But governments do much the same via military intervention on a regular basis, hence Yudkowsky talking about airstrikes that one time.
- maeil 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting to do that, I'm just showing that it's incredibly possible. You could also go with "Tomorrow a massive storm strikes the Netherlands and huge earthquakes striking Taiwan and the US Westcoast", if you have emotional objections to my first example.
Maken 3y ago
It's delayed at best.
- maeil 3y ago
  Incredibly delayed, giving at least decades to figure things out.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
I think current hardware already produced till now is either enough to get us to AGI, or it is very far away. I don't believe AGI is 30 years away. It is either very near or more than 1000s of years away.
- maeil 3y ago
  The sum of all hardware produced, sure. But the amount of hardware a single player currently posseses? Doubtful.

timmytokyo 3y ago

His solution -- assuming it's the same as the one proposed by Yudkowsky, who he quotes -- is launching air strikes against data centers hosting AI computation. So yeah, imaginary.

scarmig 3y ago
Ironically, it seems the only way to stop someone from building an omnipotent AI that could destroy the world is to build an omnipotent AI under your control faster than any of the people you need to destroy. If you believe in that sort of thing.
- jstanley 3y ago
  The only thing that can stop a bad guy with AI is a good guy with AI.
  - calgoo 3y ago
    AI's for everyone!!!! It's actually a scare but possible future. Everyone has to carry personal security AI that you rent from some Corpo, and if you don't you will be endlessly hacked and harassed in IRL just like we are online these days.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Heh, sounds like we're reading Diamond Age again.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Or possibly just not allow anyone to accumulate enough compute power, given that even the largest model so far still isn't that. Hence "if you're not willing to go as far as air strikes, you were never serious" or however he phrased it.
- pjc50 3y ago
  This is just the plot of War Games (1983).

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

"Stop" might be possible if doing AI is expensive enough like say biotech. Currently it is in the limit of being expensive(costing few hundred thousands to few million for state of the art model), but it is very likely to change in near future that will change as even currently most of the cost comes not from energy of computation, but from expensive NVIDIA hardware.

lewhoo 3y ago

That might be true but there's no way of knowing for sure. Planet wide gulag system(a colorful and a bit wrong name for prisons) already exists and is pretty aligned on topics like killing fellow humans as a result of conscious, deliberate action. I find Max Tegmark's argument pretty convincing. We seem to agree to "STOP" on things like genetically modifying ourselves at conception or birth or whatever to gain X or Y and the one loud case of violating that agreement came from China and resulted in a ticket to the gulag. Just ask chatgpt to give you examples of fields where further research was deemed too risky and was ceased.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Unlike for AI, in those fields we do not need to stack endless hypotheses on top of each other to arrive at something bad (and even then some prohibitions are tenuous in their reasoning at best).
- lewhoo 3y ago
  I don't know about that. Cloning/modifying humans has potentially so much benefit and yet we seem to stack hypotheses on top of it and conclude it's not worth it. There is also a lot to be said about all the hypotheses of killing all the Hitlers preemptively. I think that whatever we do, we usually arrive at a bit modified trolley problem and try to go from there. We really should never expect that the one particular route that we choose carries all the benefits and the other all the downsides.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    My point was more that it really isn't stretching anything to say: if something bad gets into human reproduction that has unfortunate effects. We can observe that already. So at least the risk case doesn't rely on a lot of hypotheses that might turn out wrong. Whether or not all regulations there are good or optimal is then a separate point again.
    - lewhoo 3y ago