4 ms·

Your argument is meaningless if you don't specify what threshold there should be for harm Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source

• titanomachy 2y ago
  > Those are also all dual-use technologies that are objectively morally neutral nuclear warheads?
  • drcode 2y ago
    Part of my open source Mars terraforming plan
    • sgift 2y ago
      Back to the good old plowshare, yes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
  • sanxiyn 2y ago
    Most explosives are used for construction. That's where Nobel Prize came from.
  • nradov 2y ago
    See the history of "peaceful nuclear explosions". The USA and USSR used a few nuclear warheads for civil engineering purposes. It seems crazy now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion
• 65a 2y ago
  Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome. It is already illegal in California to produce your own nuclear weapon. Instead of outlawing books, because they allow research into building giant gundam robots, just outlaw giant gundam robots.
  • drcode 2y ago
    > Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome. Some outcomes are pretty terrible, I think there are valid instances where we might also want to prevent precursor technology from being widely disseminated to prevent them.
    • 65a 2y ago
      There are certainly types of data that are already prohibited for export and dissemination. In this case, I would argue no new law is needed, the existing laws cover the export or dissemination of dual use technologies. If the LLM becomes dual-use/export-restricted/etc because it was trained on export-restricted/sensitive/etc data, it is already illegal to disseminate it. Enforce the existing law, rather than use taxpayer money to ban and police private LLM training because this might happen.
  • sanxiyn 2y ago
    Laws also should be possible (preferably easy) to implement. Why does DMCA ban circumvention tools? Circumvention is already illegal and it is piracy that should be outlawed, not tools to enable piracy? The reason is piracy tools are considerably easier to regulate than piracy.
    • michaelmrose 2y ago
      The DMCA ban on circumumvention has been both stunningly useless at discouraging piracy and effective at hurting normal users including such glorious stupidity as being used to prevent 3rd party ink cartridges. Circumvention also absent the DMCA isn't illegal.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Laws should be about the outcome, not about processes that may lead to an outcome They have to be about both because outcomes aren’t predictable, and whether something is an intermediate or ultimate outcome isn’t always clear. We have a law requiring indicator use on lane change, not just hitting someone while lane changing, for example.
• samtho 2y ago
  > Otherwise you also have to complain about the stifling of open source bioagent research, open source nuclear warheads, open source human cloning protocols No, actually you don’t. This is just a slippery slope that suggests that any of these examples are even remotely comparable to AI. There is room for nuance and it’s easy to spot the outlier among bioagent research, nuclear warheads, human cloning, and generative artificial intelligence.
  • drcode 2y ago
    Unfortunately, I think you will see this differently in a few years, that AI is not an outlier (In the fortunate case where were there were enough "close calls" that we're still around to reflect on this question) I hope I'm wrong
    • CamperBob2 2y ago
      Unfortunately, I think Maybe wait until you're sure before holding guns to peoples' heads.
      • drcode 2y ago
        we're talking about the mildest reporting requirements in bill SB-1047 (admittedly, I'm getting a bit motte-bailey here, but still)
  • sanxiyn 2y ago
    Clearly human cloning is the outlier. You know, innumerable twins exist.
  • DalasNoin 2y ago
    Agree that artificial intelligence is an outlier. I think it is the technology with the greatest associated risk of all technologies humans have worked on.
    • andy99 2y ago
      That's because you don't understand it.