3 ms·

> When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation Sure; that's almost certainly not being done in good faith. When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left th

> When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation Sure; that's almost certainly not being done in good faith. When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. > What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer https://pauseai.info/ https://pauseai.info/ > Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous You could also write that as "there's no agreement that AI is safe". But that aside... Most of the arguments about AI safety are not about current AI technology. (There are some reasonable arguments about the use of AI for impersonation, such as that AI-generated content should be labeled as such, but those are much less critical and they aren't the critical part of AI safety.) The most critical arguments about AI safety are not primarily about current technology. They're about near-future expansions of AI capabilities. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01933 > how to mitigate that danger Pause capabilities research until we have proven strategies for aligning AI to human safety. > How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that? We don't know that it's safe, many people are arguing that it's dangerous on an unprecedented scale, there are no good refutations of those arguments, and we don't know how to ensure its safety. That's not a situation in which "we shouldn't do anything about it" is a good idea. How can you even attempt to regulate biological weapons research without having a good way to mitigate it? By stopping biological weapons research.

randomdata 3y ago
> When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. Their big revelation that they left their jobs over is that AI might be used to usurp identities, which, admittedly, is entirely plausible and arguably already something we're starting to see happen. It is humorous that your takeaway from that is that we need to double down on their identity instead of realizing that identity is a misguided and flawed concept.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Is it condescending to describe a differing opinion as "humorous?" It came across as quite rude.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is. Is rudeness not rooted in the very same misguided and flawed identity concept? I don't suppose a monkey that you cannot discern from any other monkey giving you the middle finger congers any feelings of that nature. Yet, here the output of software has, I suspect because the software presents the message alongside some kind of clear identity marker. But is it not irrational to be offended by the output of software?
shkkmo 3y ago
In principle, I'm not opposed to a pause. However, in practice, enforcing a pause entails a massive global increase in surveillance and restrictions on what can be done with a computer. > Track the sales of GPUs and other hardware that can be used for AI training So we now have an agency with a register of all computer sales? If you give a computer with a a GPU to a friend or family member, that's breakibf the law ubless you also report it? This takes us in a very scary direction. This has to be a global effort, so we need a system of international enforcement to make it happen. We've been marginally successful in limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons, but at significant international and humanitarian costs. Nuclear weapons require a much more specialized supply chain than AI so limiting and monitoring adversarial access was easier. Now we want to use the same techniques to force adversarial regimes to implement sane regulations around the sale and usage of computer equipment. This seems absolutely batshit insane. In what world does this seem remotely feasible? We've already tried an easier version of this with the biological weapon research ban. The ban exists but enforcement doesn't. In that case, a huge part of the issue was that facilities that do that research very similar or the same as all kinds of other research. An AI Pause has the same issue, but it is compounded by the fact that AI models can grant significant economic advantage in a way that nuclear/biological weapons don't so incentives to find a way to skirt regulations are higher. (Edit: it's further complicated by the fact that the AI risks that the Pause tries to mitigate are theoretical and people haven't seen them, unlike biological/nuclear. This makes concerted global action harder) A global pause on AI research is completely unrealistic. Calls for a global pause are basically calls for starting regime change wars around the globe and even that won't be sufficient. We have to find a different way to mitigate these risks.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Great comment! It's unlooked that sometimes any implementation of an Obvious Good Thing requires an Obvious Bad Thing. In which case we need to weigh the two. In the case of a prerequisite panopticon, I usually come down against. Even after thinking of the children.
SkyBelow 3y ago
>Pause capabilities research until we have proven strategies for aligning AI to human safety. If the power of AI deserves this reaction, then governments are in a race to avoid doing this. We might be able to keep it out of the hands of the average person, but I don't find that to be the real threat (and what harm that does exist at the individual level is from a Pandora's box that has already been opened). Think of it like stopping our nuclear research program before nuclear weapons were invented. A few countries would have stopped but not all and the weapons would have appeared on the world stage all the same, though perhaps with a different balance of power. Also, is the threat of AI enough to be willing to kill people to stop it? If not, then government vs government action won't take place to stop it and even intra-government bans end up looking like abuse. If it is... I haven't thought too much on this conditional path because I have yet to see anyone agree that it is. Then again, perhaps I have a conspiratorial view of governments because I don't believe that those in power stopped biological weapons research as it is too important to understand even if just from a defensive perspective.

randomdata 3y ago

> When numerous AI experts and luminaries who left their jobs in AI are advocating for AI regulation, that's much more likely to be being done in good faith. Their big revelation that they left their jobs over is that AI might be used to usurp identities, which, admittedly, is entirely plausible and arguably already something we're starting to see happen. It is humorous that your takeaway from that is that we need to double down on their identity instead of realizing that identity is a misguided and flawed concept.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Is it condescending to describe a differing opinion as "humorous?" It came across as quite rude.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- randomdata 3y ago
  Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that it is. Is rudeness not rooted in the very same misguided and flawed identity concept? I don't suppose a monkey that you cannot discern from any other monkey giving you the middle finger congers any feelings of that nature. Yet, here the output of software has, I suspect because the software presents the message alongside some kind of clear identity marker. But is it not irrational to be offended by the output of software?

shkkmo 3y ago

In principle, I'm not opposed to a pause. However, in practice, enforcing a pause entails a massive global increase in surveillance and restrictions on what can be done with a computer. > Track the sales of GPUs and other hardware that can be used for AI training So we now have an agency with a register of all computer sales? If you give a computer with a a GPU to a friend or family member, that's breakibf the law ubless you also report it? This takes us in a very scary direction. This has to be a global effort, so we need a system of international enforcement to make it happen. We've been marginally successful in limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons, but at significant international and humanitarian costs. Nuclear weapons require a much more specialized supply chain than AI so limiting and monitoring adversarial access was easier. Now we want to use the same techniques to force adversarial regimes to implement sane regulations around the sale and usage of computer equipment. This seems absolutely batshit insane. In what world does this seem remotely feasible? We've already tried an easier version of this with the biological weapon research ban. The ban exists but enforcement doesn't. In that case, a huge part of the issue was that facilities that do that research very similar or the same as all kinds of other research. An AI Pause has the same issue, but it is compounded by the fact that AI models can grant significant economic advantage in a way that nuclear/biological weapons don't so incentives to find a way to skirt regulations are higher. (Edit: it's further complicated by the fact that the AI risks that the Pause tries to mitigate are theoretical and people haven't seen them, unlike biological/nuclear. This makes concerted global action harder) A global pause on AI research is completely unrealistic. Calls for a global pause are basically calls for starting regime change wars around the globe and even that won't be sufficient. We have to find a different way to mitigate these risks.

ethbr1 3y ago
Great comment! It's unlooked that sometimes any implementation of an Obvious Good Thing requires an Obvious Bad Thing. In which case we need to weigh the two. In the case of a prerequisite panopticon, I usually come down against. Even after thinking of the children.

SkyBelow 3y ago

>Pause capabilities research until we have proven strategies for aligning AI to human safety. If the power of AI deserves this reaction, then governments are in a race to avoid doing this. We might be able to keep it out of the hands of the average person, but I don't find that to be the real threat (and what harm that does exist at the individual level is from a Pandora's box that has already been opened). Think of it like stopping our nuclear research program before nuclear weapons were invented. A few countries would have stopped but not all and the weapons would have appeared on the world stage all the same, though perhaps with a different balance of power. Also, is the threat of AI enough to be willing to kill people to stop it? If not, then government vs government action won't take place to stop it and even intra-government bans end up looking like abuse. If it is... I haven't thought too much on this conditional path because I have yet to see anyone agree that it is. Then again, perhaps I have a conspiratorial view of governments because I don't believe that those in power stopped biological weapons research as it is too important to understand even if just from a defensive perspective.