3 ms·
Regarding "otherwise they'll just move" - yes it's a collective action problem. But usually the solution to these is not just to give up, if it's a big problem.
by fulafel 3y ago
Regarding "otherwise they'll just move" - yes it's a collective action problem. But usually the solution to these is not just to give up, if it's a big problem. The international policy approach is usually to DTRT at home and work on treaties internationally (or other policy tools, stick and carrot etc).
Also, from a moral philosophy point of view, "this is wrong but if we don't do it, someone else will collect the profits and the bad thing will happen anyway - hence we'll do this wrong thing" is not sound. Applied generally it would lead to a lot of bad stuff (moral race to the bottom).
- pcthrowaway 3y agoI generally agree, but really think AI is different with regards to the stakes being (at least viewed by many as) higher than any other field of research. Whether or not you believe this is the case with AI is not what I'm getting at, but a lot of people believe AI has the potential to cause more damage than nuclear weaponry technology, as well as the potential to suspend aging, end all natural causes of death, regrow limbs, fix any bodily ailments. There will be countries that embrace AI out of potential for the latter, and capitalists who do their capitalist thing and make as much money off of the perceived latent power. There is no prospect of achieving a truly international consensus (meaning applied the same way by every country, we don't even have that with copyright, though that's the closest example I can think of) on AI policy. Given that, do you really think the U.S. is going to sit by and watch as the majority of AI research is conducted in other countries?