5 ms·
I still don't get what the plan is to stop bad actors from developing bad AI. A bunch of good actors agreeing not to do bad things won't help it.
by bufferoverflow 3y ago
I still don't get what the plan is to stop bad actors from developing bad AI.
A bunch of good actors agreeing not to do bad things won't help it.
- dtx1 3y agoThere is none. Just go on 4chan and see all kinds of bad AI already in use.
- artninja1988 3y agoYou mean the art and voice threads? How will we survive!
- ketzo 3y agoDeepfake porn and AI voice extortion are real harms from these technologies that are having a meaningful impact on people’s lives already. I don’t think they’re society-ending, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge them.
- swatcoder 3y agoThorough acknowledgment means they’re now inevitable and that we’ll naturally revise how we interpret media. We’ve done that nearly every time there’s been a shift in media, from photography to telephones to home video to digital photo and video editing, and it just sort of happens organically and automatically as people learn what they can now do and what they can now trust. Panicked, doomed attempts to control that sort of change is just divisive and futile. That’s not to say that there won’t be necessary laws and regulations around near-term “AI” tech, but that deep fakes are well into the irrelevant noise of what people will learn to navigate on their own.
- raincole 3y ago[flagged]
- itishappy 3y agoExcitement feels kinda weird here, but if that's really your thing, 4chan has all the AI generated celebrity deepfakes and child porn your heart desires.
- Pannoniae 3y ago"bad" AI? you mean.... not overcensored AI? the "mainstream" offerings are utterly restricted, you can't even generate porn with it. channers play an important part in driving innovation and keeping the thought police in check...
- dtx1 3y ago[flagged]
- thomashop 3y agoAll of these can be done without AI.
- llbeansandrice 3y agoI'd presume that HN readers of all people would be able to recognize the inherent power in increasing access, reducing friction, and powerful force multipliers like AI. Your statement reads exactly the same as "people can be killed without firearms". It's true, but firearms obviously help and cause measurable harm compared to alternatives because it makes killing (whether homicide or suicide) much easier.
- chasd00 3y agoaside from simulated child porn which has already been proven illegal.. i think. what exactly is the problem? If you're asking bigtech to be the morality police it's not going to work. Actually, i would love to seem them attempt this. A unified moral code for all AI globally. If they pull that off i'd ask them for a unified global religion next.
- JW_00000 3y agoI think fake nudes could also be illegal (because you're using someone's image without their consent).
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
- silenced_trope 3y agoRight, this is existing players (OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, FB, etc) protecting their moat. AI can't be "paused". Sometimes I see the question "should we put a pause on AI development?" It doesn't mean anything. Some countries like China may say they're on board with pausing it but would they actually do so? Or just sign on and allow their companies to get an edge by not enforcing a pause. Same thing with the existing AI companies.
- chakalakasp 3y agoYes and no. AI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons or deciding to burn all the fossil fuels -- on an individual competitive level, it makes sense to do this more and more to remain competitive. On a systems-whole level it leads to catastrophe. The whole tragedy of the commons thing, or, more recently described, the Moloch problem. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditations-on-moloch https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TxcRbCYHaeL59aY7E/meditation... Yann LeCun is one of the loudest AI open source proponents right now (which of course jives with Meta's very deliberate open source stab at OpenAI). And when you listen to smart guys like him talk, you realize that even he doesn't really grasp the problem (or if he does, he pretends not to). https://x.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162?s=20 https://x.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162?s=20
- CamperBob2 3y agoAI is no different than proliferating nuclear weapons I mean, once the discussion goes THIS far off the rails of reality, where do we go from here?
- Mistletoe 3y agoCan someone outline how AI could actually harm us directly? I don’t believe for a second sci-fi novel nonsense about self-replicating robots that we can’t unplug. My Roomba can’t even do its very simple task without getting caught on the rug. I don’t know of any complicated computing cluster or machine that exists that wouldn’t implode without human intervention on an almost daily level. If we are talking about AI stoking human fears and weaknesses to make them do awful things, then ok I can see that and am afraid we have been there for some time with our algorithms and AI journalism.
- kevincox 3y agoI hate to say it, but I don't think it can be stopped. Stopping "bad actors" from using guns, or distributing drugs has a sliver of hope as they do these things to the general public so can physically be intercepted. But even then enforcement has been largely unsuccessful. Stopping people from using AI which is something that they can trivially download and do on their own private compute is simply infeasible. We would need to lock all computing behind government control to have any hope. That is clearly to me too high a price to pay. Even then current hardware will be amassed that doesn't have this lock-down. So I think the right approach here is to not worry about regulating the AI to prevent it from doing bad things, we should just regulate the bad things themselves. However I do think there is also room for some light regulation around certification. If we can make meaningful progress on AI Alignment and safety it may make sense to require some sort of "AI license". But this is just to avoid naive people making mistakes, it won't stop malicious people from causing intentional harm.
- dan_mctree 3y agoNor do I get what the plan is to stop good but overoptimistic actors developing AI that spirals out of their control I feel these kind of statements by Mozilla reflect exactly that lack of caution that may end us
- nonrandomstring 3y ago> A bunch of good actors agreeing not to do bad things won't help it. And that's true whichever way you cut it. Whether those "good" actors are everybody or a few selected for privilege. We have no basis on which to trust big technology companies more than anybody else. Indeed quite the opposite if the past 10 years are anything to go by. It is such a god-awful shame that corporations have been so disgracefully behaved that we now face this bind. But at least we know what we'll be getting into if we start handing them prefects badges - organised and "safe" abuse by the few as opposed to risky chaos amongst the many. A saner solution might be a moratorium on existing big tech and media companies developing AI, while granting licenses to startups with the proviso that they are barred from acquisition for 10 years,
- chasd00 3y agoAnother sane solution would be a law stating all trained models, source code, and training data must be made available to anyone who asks at no cost. That removes an AI as the secret sauce to any commercial entity but still leaving the door open to research and advancement. Propose that and watch all these big companies come back with "whoa whoa whoa, that's not what we meant. What we meant was we have it but no one else can have it".
- dclowd9901 3y agoI don’t know if you were intending to do this but your argument is almost ripped verbatim from advocates of open gun ownership.
- drdaeman 3y agoIt will make it harder for "bad" actors to develop "bad AI" if all those "good" actors will never let anyone access their research, keep it entirely private, and only lease access to the final products. "Bad" actors will have to do everything on their own, and "good" actors will try to hire every good scientist for themselves, and possibly threaten anyone who considers working with "bad" actors or try to make this cooperation harder. I'm not supporting this, of course. That's just what "good" actors seem to do.
- tedunangst 3y agoWe drop nukes on China when they buy too many GPUs, obviously.