4 ms·
It's a logical trap to assume we have to pick who develops an AGI rather than deciding if we want one developed at all. Even in that scenario, I'm not really s
by _heimdall 3y ago
It's a logical trap to assume we have to pick who develops an AGI rather than deciding if we want one developed at all.
Even in that scenario, I'm not really sure what the distinction would end up being. At least in the US, our government and corporations are so tightly coupled at this point that we're really toeing the waters of Fascism.
If a corporation develops an AGI our government can have access to it whenever they deem necessary. And if a government wants to develop one they will almost certainly partner with corporations to do it. I'm sure the military and intelligence agencies have their own projects running, but they'd accelerate by partnering with and funding corporate projects and research.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoIn isolation, perhaps we could choose to not develop such large models, but the globe shrinks every day. If one country declines to create such a beast, other countries still will create their own beast. From what I've seen so far, it's mostly a brute force issue now, not a specialized knowledge issue. Perhaps if all the rumors spilling out of OpenAI about Q* are true, then other countries can be blocked due to lack of the required knowledge, but I have doubts that such secrets would be secret for long.
- _heimdall 3y agoWe can choose to not accept the tragedy of the commons. There's always the risk that your adversary continues on down that path, but is the risk of losing after making a moral stand really worse than the risk of everyone racing down the dangerous path?