4 ms·

> surely it's better to have distributed AGI than to have AGI only in the hands of the elites. The argument of doing so is the same as Nuclear Non-Proliferatio

> surely it's better to have distributed AGI than to have AGI only in the hands of the elites. The argument of doing so is the same as Nuclear Non-Proliferation - because of its great abuse potential, giving the technology to everyone only causes random bombings of cities instead of creating a system with checks and balances. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I found the reasoning is not groundless.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Aerroon 2y ago
But the reason for nuclear non-proliferation is to hold onto power. Abuse potential is a great excuse, but it applies to everyone. Current nuclear states have demonstrated that they are willing to indirectly abuse them (you can't invade Russia, but Russia has no problem invading you as long as you aren't backed up by nukes).
- segfaultbuserr 2y ago
  Both can be true at the same time. The world's superpowers enforce nuclear non-proliferation mainly because it allows them to keep unfair political and military advantages to themselves. At the same time, one cannot deny that centralized weapon ownership made the use of such weapons more controllable: These nuclear states are powerful enough to establish a somewhat responsible chain of command to avoid their unreasonable or accidental uses, and so far these attempts are still successful. Also, due to the fact that they are "too big to fail", they were forced to hire experts to make detailed analysis on the consequences of nuclear wars, and the resulted MAD doctrine discouraged them from starting such wars. On the other hand, if the same nuclear technologies are available to everyone, the chance of an unreasonable or accidental nuclear war will be higher. If even resourceful superpowers can barely keep these nuclear weapons under safe political and technical control (as shown by multiple incidents and near-misses during the Cold War [0]), surely a less resourceful state or military in possession of equally destructive weapons will have even more difficulties on controlling their uses. At least this is how the argument goes (so far, I personally take no position). Of course, I clearly realized that centralized control is not infallible. Months ago, in a previous thread on OpenAI's refusal on publishing technical details of GPT-4, most people believed that they were using it as an excuse to maintain a monopolistic control. Instead, I argued that perhaps OpenAI truly values the problem of safety right now - but acting responsibly right now is not an indication that they will still act responsibly in the future. There's no guarantee that the safety considerations will eventually be overridden in favor of financial gains. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Aerroon 2y ago

But the reason for nuclear non-proliferation is to hold onto power. Abuse potential is a great excuse, but it applies to everyone. Current nuclear states have demonstrated that they are willing to indirectly abuse them (you can't invade Russia, but Russia has no problem invading you as long as you aren't backed up by nukes).

segfaultbuserr 2y ago
Both can be true at the same time. The world's superpowers enforce nuclear non-proliferation mainly because it allows them to keep unfair political and military advantages to themselves. At the same time, one cannot deny that centralized weapon ownership made the use of such weapons more controllable: These nuclear states are powerful enough to establish a somewhat responsible chain of command to avoid their unreasonable or accidental uses, and so far these attempts are still successful. Also, due to the fact that they are "too big to fail", they were forced to hire experts to make detailed analysis on the consequences of nuclear wars, and the resulted MAD doctrine discouraged them from starting such wars. On the other hand, if the same nuclear technologies are available to everyone, the chance of an unreasonable or accidental nuclear war will be higher. If even resourceful superpowers can barely keep these nuclear weapons under safe political and technical control (as shown by multiple incidents and near-misses during the Cold War [0]), surely a less resourceful state or military in possession of equally destructive weapons will have even more difficulties on controlling their uses. At least this is how the argument goes (so far, I personally take no position). Of course, I clearly realized that centralized control is not infallible. Months ago, in a previous thread on OpenAI's refusal on publishing technical details of GPT-4, most people believed that they were using it as an excuse to maintain a monopolistic control. Instead, I argued that perhaps OpenAI truly values the problem of safety right now - but acting responsibly right now is not an indication that they will still act responsibly in the future. There's no guarantee that the safety considerations will eventually be overridden in favor of financial gains. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)