3 ms·
> How do think we should address security around AI The same way we address security around cars: we don't ban individuals from working on project cars, or dri
by sangnoir 2y ago
> How do think we should address security around AI
The same way we address security around cars: we don't ban individuals from working on project cars, or driving them on public roads - instead, we have standards for OEMs and individuals, and prosecute negligence.
AI safely is similar to GM lobbying for laws making it illegal to tweak your own car or changing your own brake fluid for "public safety".
- wolverine876 2y ago> we don't ban individuals from working on project cars, or driving them on public roads - instead, we have standards for OEMs and individuals, and prosecute negligence I'm not quite sure what you mean, or what in AI safety you see as analogous. For other technology, certainly building and using certain things is illegal - you can't make hand grenades, lots of chemicals; I'm pretty sure you can't own certain instruments of crime, counterfeit money, etc. Many things you can do; it's not all or nothing.
- sangnoir 2y ago> I'm not quite sure what you mean IMO, for the general public, current AI models are much closer to cars than they are to anti-personnel weapons, when plotted on risk/benefit axes. FWIW, vehicle regulations are not an all-or-nothing affair either - there are things that remain verboten. Those who claim AIs are too dangerous to be in the hands of the public have ulterior motives, and/or are far more optimistic than I am on the speed and ease the chasm between LLM and general intelligence will be bridged - if it at all.