15 ms·

> The first step is to stop thinking of "the public" as a monolithic entity whose interests are pursued by the government, and instead recognize that control ov

> The first step is to stop thinking of "the public" as a monolithic entity whose interests are pursued by the government, and instead recognize that control over things that have a major impact on the lives, welfare, freedom, and prosperity need to be things they can effectively control or opt-out of as individuals. If AI takes over the world, or others pump lots of GHG into the air and cause climate change, or someone sets off explosives and burns down my neighborhood, or my frozen chicken contains poisonous bacteria, or my bathroom sanitizer doesn't really sanitize - how do I opt out? Plenty of regulations coexists with FOSS, obviously. The arguments against all regulation are transparently weak, and the apparent dogmatism discredits everything else. Why be so dogmatically anti-regulation? Dogmatism isn't about finding truth but about serving someone's political interests. If I understand correctly what's happening, whose interests are you serving and why?

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> If AI takes over the world, This is a potential concern, but no currently-existing computer system (that I'm aware of) is any kind of risk for that. Certainly, nothing OpenAI has produced is. I'd say the currently-real unaligned-agent behaviour of our institutions is a bigger risk than currently-fictional computer-instantiated unaligned superintelligence. And we do have regulation in place to constrain the behaviour of many institutions: governments, corporations, utility operators, and so on. The unaligned agent problem was not discovered by the AI safety people. They merely named it.
- Gormo 2y ago
  > The unaligned agent problem was not discovered by the AI safety people. They merely named it. In other disciplines, this is known as the "principal-agent problem" [1] or "fiduciary risk" [2]. Like you, I'm far more worried about the behavior of human institutions controlled by third parties with their own agendas than I am about the behavior of software that implements stochastic algorithms. The risk in both cases comes from people surrendering their own agency and autonomy to external parties, and we already live in a word where too many people put blind faith in dysfunctional institutions which are demonstrably "unaligned" with the actual values and interests of those they pretend to act on behalf of. Turning to those very institutions to stop people from relying on "unaligned" software seems absolutely insane. ---- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Accountability

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> If AI takes over the world, This is a potential concern, but no currently-existing computer system (that I'm aware of) is any kind of risk for that. Certainly, nothing OpenAI has produced is. I'd say the currently-real unaligned-agent behaviour of our institutions is a bigger risk than currently-fictional computer-instantiated unaligned superintelligence. And we do have regulation in place to constrain the behaviour of many institutions: governments, corporations, utility operators, and so on. The unaligned agent problem was not discovered by the AI safety people. They merely named it.

Gormo 2y ago
> The unaligned agent problem was not discovered by the AI safety people. They merely named it. In other disciplines, this is known as the "principal-agent problem" [1] or "fiduciary risk" [2]. Like you, I'm far more worried about the behavior of human institutions controlled by third parties with their own agendas than I am about the behavior of software that implements stochastic algorithms. The risk in both cases comes from people surrendering their own agency and autonomy to external parties, and we already live in a word where too many people put blind faith in dysfunctional institutions which are demonstrably "unaligned" with the actual values and interests of those they pretend to act on behalf of. Turning to those very institutions to stop people from relying on "unaligned" software seems absolutely insane. ---- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Accountability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary#Accountability