12 ms·

You are advocating here for an unresolvable set of ethics, which just happens to be one that conveniently leaves abuse of AI on the table. You take as an axiom

You are advocating here for an unresolvable set of ethics, which just happens to be one that conveniently leaves abuse of AI on the table. You take as an axiom of your ethical system the absolute right to create and propagate in public these AI technologies regardless of any externalities and social pressures created. It is of course an ethical system primarily and exclusively interested in advancing the individual at the expense of the collective, and it is a choice. If you wish to live in a society at all you absolutely need to codify a set of unresolvable ethics. There is not a single instance in history in which a polity can survive complete ethical relativism within itself...which is basically what your "wild west" idea is advocating for (and incidentally, seems to have been a major disaster for society as far as the internet is concerned and if anything should be evidence against your second idea).

ajisiekskaiek 3y ago
I should also note that the wild west was not at all lacking in a set of ethics, and in many ways was far stricter than the east at the time.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  I think the contrast is that strict behavior norms in the West are not governed behavior norms in the East. One arises analogous with natural selection (previous commenter's take). The other through governance. Arguably, the prior resulted in a rebuilding of government with liberty at its foundation (I like this result). That foundation then being, over centuries, again destroyed by governance. In that view, we might say government assumes to know what's best and history often proves it to be wrong. Observing a system so that we know what it is before we attempt to change it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think "AI" is anywhere near being dangerous at this point. Just offensive.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    It sounds like you're just describing why our watch-and-see approach cannot handle a hard AGI/ASI takeoff. A system that first exhibits some questionable danger, then achieves complete victory a few days later, simply cannot be managed by an incremental approach. We pretty much have to pray that we get a few dangerous-but-not-too-dangerous "practice takeoffs" first, and if anything those will probably just make us think that we can handle it.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
      If there’s no advancements in alignment before takeoff, is there really any remote hope of doing anything? You’d need to legally halt ai progress everywhere in the world and carefully monitor large compute clusters or someone could still do it. Honestly I think we should put tons of money into the control problem, but otherwise just gamble it.
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        I mean, you have accurately summarized the exact thing that safety advocates want. :) > legally halt ai progress everywhere in the world and carefully monitor large compute clusters This is in fact the thing they're working on. That's the whole point of the flops-based training run reporting requirements.
        throwaway11460 3y ago
        Reporting requirements are not going to save you from Chinese, North Korean, Iranian or Russian programmers just doing it. Or some US/EU based hackers that don't care or actively go against the law. You can rent large botnets or various pieces of cloud for few dollars today, doesn't even have to be a DC that you could monitor.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        Sure, but China is already honestly more careful than America: the CCP really doesn't want competitors to power. They're very open to slowdown agreements. And NK, Iran and Russia honestly have nothing. The day we have to worry about NK ASI takeoff, it'll already long have happened in some American basement. So we just need active monitoring for US/EU data centers. That's a big ask to be sure, and definitely an invasion of privacy, but it's hardly unviable, either technologically or politically. The corporatized structure of big LLMs helps us out here: the states involved already have lots of experience in investigating and curtailing corporate behavior. And sure, ultimately there's no stopping it. The whole point is to play for time in the hopes that somebody comes up with a good idea for safety and we manage an actually aligned takeoff, at which point it's out of our hands anyways.
- lupire 3y ago
  Please elaborate
enriquec 3y ago
[flagged]
- danans 3y ago
  What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advanced their standard of living the most.
  - waihtis 3y ago
    such as?
    - danans 3y ago
      Read my post, I said the US in the post-WWII period, and really reaching back to the New Deal. Also, most Western European societies.
      - waihtis 3y ago
        yes apologies, morning grogginess
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its allies England and the USSR, and also fought across both oceans and buried the opposition, a truly spectacular feat. Again, through the free market.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The US were much less a factor in WW1 than WW2. If anything, the US entry forced the Entente's hands to start the planned 1919 offensive early in 1918 and ending the war. The USA did not contribute a large amlint of troops, relative to the armies already deployed, nor did they contribute significant amounts of gear. Lend-Lease was a WW2 thing, in WW1 the majority of US tanks for example were actually French. The US were a economic power prior to WW1, they only became a true super power during WW2, in particular after Pearl Habour. The full mobilization of society, industry and science made sure of this. This, and the fact the US won the Pacific. I know it is a popular view of WW1, that it was only the US entry that won it for the Entente. Simply not true, WW1 is not WW2. And even WW2 was not won by the US alone. Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free, is was a complete structured war eceonomy with production goals set by the government. The implementation of those goals was capitalistic, but not free.

ajisiekskaiek 3y ago

I should also note that the wild west was not at all lacking in a set of ethics, and in many ways was far stricter than the east at the time.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
I think the contrast is that strict behavior norms in the West are not governed behavior norms in the East. One arises analogous with natural selection (previous commenter's take). The other through governance. Arguably, the prior resulted in a rebuilding of government with liberty at its foundation (I like this result). That foundation then being, over centuries, again destroyed by governance. In that view, we might say government assumes to know what's best and history often proves it to be wrong. Observing a system so that we know what it is before we attempt to change it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think "AI" is anywhere near being dangerous at this point. Just offensive.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  It sounds like you're just describing why our watch-and-see approach cannot handle a hard AGI/ASI takeoff. A system that first exhibits some questionable danger, then achieves complete victory a few days later, simply cannot be managed by an incremental approach. We pretty much have to pray that we get a few dangerous-but-not-too-dangerous "practice takeoffs" first, and if anything those will probably just make us think that we can handle it.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    If there’s no advancements in alignment before takeoff, is there really any remote hope of doing anything? You’d need to legally halt ai progress everywhere in the world and carefully monitor large compute clusters or someone could still do it. Honestly I think we should put tons of money into the control problem, but otherwise just gamble it.
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      I mean, you have accurately summarized the exact thing that safety advocates want. :) > legally halt ai progress everywhere in the world and carefully monitor large compute clusters This is in fact the thing they're working on. That's the whole point of the flops-based training run reporting requirements.
      - throwaway11460 3y ago
        Reporting requirements are not going to save you from Chinese, North Korean, Iranian or Russian programmers just doing it. Or some US/EU based hackers that don't care or actively go against the law. You can rent large botnets or various pieces of cloud for few dollars today, doesn't even have to be a DC that you could monitor.
        FeepingCreature 3y ago
        Sure, but China is already honestly more careful than America: the CCP really doesn't want competitors to power. They're very open to slowdown agreements. And NK, Iran and Russia honestly have nothing. The day we have to worry about NK ASI takeoff, it'll already long have happened in some American basement. So we just need active monitoring for US/EU data centers. That's a big ask to be sure, and definitely an invasion of privacy, but it's hardly unviable, either technologically or politically. The corporatized structure of big LLMs helps us out here: the states involved already have lots of experience in investigating and curtailing corporate behavior. And sure, ultimately there's no stopping it. The whole point is to play for time in the hopes that somebody comes up with a good idea for safety and we manage an actually aligned takeoff, at which point it's out of our hands anyways.
lupire 3y ago
Please elaborate

enriquec 3y ago

[flagged]

danans 3y ago
What has failed are completely "collectivist" or "individualist" societies. Societies that balance the two (like the post WWII US) are the ones that have advanced their standard of living the most.
- waihtis 3y ago
  such as?
  - danans 3y ago
    Read my post, I said the US in the post-WWII period, and really reaching back to the New Deal. Also, most Western European societies.
    - waihtis 3y ago
      yes apologies, morning grogginess
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The US became a superpower long before WW2. The US was the deciding factor in WW1, and the Germans were shocked at how well-fed and well-equipped the US soldiers were, even with having to ship everything across the ocean. The US saw the most spectacular rise in the standard of living from 1800 up to WW2 the world had ever seen. This was all due to the free market, not collectivism. During WW2, the US supplied its allies England and the USSR, and also fought across both oceans and buried the opposition, a truly spectacular feat. Again, through the free market.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The US were much less a factor in WW1 than WW2. If anything, the US entry forced the Entente's hands to start the planned 1919 offensive early in 1918 and ending the war. The USA did not contribute a large amlint of troops, relative to the armies already deployed, nor did they contribute significant amounts of gear. Lend-Lease was a WW2 thing, in WW1 the majority of US tanks for example were actually French. The US were a economic power prior to WW1, they only became a true super power during WW2, in particular after Pearl Habour. The full mobilization of society, industry and science made sure of this. This, and the fact the US won the Pacific. I know it is a popular view of WW1, that it was only the US entry that won it for the Entente. Simply not true, WW1 is not WW2. And even WW2 was not won by the US alone. Finally, the US war economy of WW2 was decidedly not free, is was a complete structured war eceonomy with production goals set by the government. The implementation of those goals was capitalistic, but not free.