5 ms·

The models don't exist yet but they will in the near future. It's easier to regulate something that doesn't already exist (for example, the Outer Space Treaty i

The models don't exist yet but they will in the near future. It's easier to regulate something that doesn't already exist (for example, the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 banned military bases on the Moon).

gmueckl 2y ago
There are a few differences between the Outer Space Treaty and AI regulation: it was easy back than to have a good idea what having a military base on the moon would lead to. On one hand, AI research is moving fast and we don't know where we will be a few years from now (I don't think the prevalence of AI hallucinations as apparent 4 or 5 years ago). On the other, AI models are already doing real damage (audiovisual deep fakes, AI face recognition and tracking...). So let me put it a bit more pointedly: what's the point regulating what doesn't exist when the existing models are already dangerous? Is there a legitimate reason? Is it a fig leaf measure so that politicians can uphold the appearance of taking action?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it was easy back than to have a good idea what having a military base on the moon would lead to Genuinely curious where this comes from, because it’s still not clear what military bases on the moon might lead to. (Which is partly why the more-restrictive Moon Treaty failed.)
  - gmueckl 2y ago
    It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that whoever builds a military moonbase gains the ability to target and destroy any place on earth. No superpower wants to be threatened from space in that way.
    - baggy_trough 2y ago
      I guess it requires more imagination than I have, because I don't understand what a military moonbase gets you.
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
        Lunar PX
        baggy_trough 2y ago
        and what is that?
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Cheap consumer goods ON. THE. MOON!
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > whoever builds a military moonbase gains the ability to target and destroy any place on earth By turning the 20- to 60-minute flight time of an ICBM into a three-day trip? What?! This is like people with zero knowledge of orbital mechanics getting uppity about nukes in orbit.
      - gmueckl 2y ago
        Even if it was possible to evacuate a big city in three days, it would still be a valuable target.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Even if it was possible to evacuate a big city in three days, it would still be a valuable target By that logic there is military value to staging nukes to attack Earth on Alpha Centauri. You can launch more payload quicker from Earth, all without giving your enemy a polite three-day heads up that they should get around to wiping down their interceptors and nuking you back before cocktail hour. There is no established value to a military base on the Moon, certainly not as it pertains to Earth directly. We didn’t sign the OST because of fears about lunar bombardment, we signed it because we feared teams trying to stake out conflicting claims in space starting a war on Earth. (See: China and America racing for the edge of Shackleton Crater.)

gmueckl 2y ago

There are a few differences between the Outer Space Treaty and AI regulation: it was easy back than to have a good idea what having a military base on the moon would lead to. On one hand, AI research is moving fast and we don't know where we will be a few years from now (I don't think the prevalence of AI hallucinations as apparent 4 or 5 years ago). On the other, AI models are already doing real damage (audiovisual deep fakes, AI face recognition and tracking...). So let me put it a bit more pointedly: what's the point regulating what doesn't exist when the existing models are already dangerous? Is there a legitimate reason? Is it a fig leaf measure so that politicians can uphold the appearance of taking action?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it was easy back than to have a good idea what having a military base on the moon would lead to Genuinely curious where this comes from, because it’s still not clear what military bases on the moon might lead to. (Which is partly why the more-restrictive Moon Treaty failed.)
- gmueckl 2y ago
  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that whoever builds a military moonbase gains the ability to target and destroy any place on earth. No superpower wants to be threatened from space in that way.
  - baggy_trough 2y ago
    I guess it requires more imagination than I have, because I don't understand what a military moonbase gets you.
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      Lunar PX
      - baggy_trough 2y ago
        and what is that?
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        Cheap consumer goods ON. THE. MOON!
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > whoever builds a military moonbase gains the ability to target and destroy any place on earth By turning the 20- to 60-minute flight time of an ICBM into a three-day trip? What?! This is like people with zero knowledge of orbital mechanics getting uppity about nukes in orbit.
    - gmueckl 2y ago
      Even if it was possible to evacuate a big city in three days, it would still be a valuable target.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Even if it was possible to evacuate a big city in three days, it would still be a valuable target By that logic there is military value to staging nukes to attack Earth on Alpha Centauri. You can launch more payload quicker from Earth, all without giving your enemy a polite three-day heads up that they should get around to wiping down their interceptors and nuking you back before cocktail hour. There is no established value to a military base on the Moon, certainly not as it pertains to Earth directly. We didn’t sign the OST because of fears about lunar bombardment, we signed it because we feared teams trying to stake out conflicting claims in space starting a war on Earth. (See: China and America racing for the edge of Shackleton Crater.)