8 ms·

> there will likely be open-weights versions of this sort of thing eventually. And there will probably be people who argue that it’s a good thing, somehow. If

> there will likely be open-weights versions of this sort of thing eventually. And there will probably be people who argue that it’s a good thing, somehow. If this technology is going to exist (which it is), do you think it would be more harmful for everybody to have access to it, or for only some group of elites (big business, your own government, somebody else government, criminal groups, whoever) to have access to it? Because those are the only two choices as far as I can tell.

skybrian 2y ago
I find this style of reasoning ("you wouldn't want just the elites to have it") to be unpersuasive. I think it would be better if random people on the street didn't have it. Similarly, I'm glad there aren't any people in my neighborhood who have all the weapons that the Russians and North Koreans and organized crime have.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  A lot of people will agree with this sentiment when the hazard is firearms or other weapons. But in this case the “hazard” is information, and the ability to process and distribute it. Entrusting an authority to regulate that to the extent that would be required to regulate GenAI is a far more dystopian proposition than regulating gun ownership.
protomolecule 2y ago
Now ask the same question about nuclear bombs or modification of viruses.
FeepingCreature 2y ago
Definitely less harmful if only the elites have it. It doesn't make them harder to kill, but it reduces proliferation. And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Generally speaking if you think most of the danger of any technology comes from accidents, you want fewer people to have it and don't care too much which ones it is, though it'd be preferable if they had a lot to lose.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  > And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Even if you trust your own government, which I would suggest is misguided (the known propaganda programs that have come out of the DOD alone should be enough to dispel this trust), in a world where only the regulating authorities have access to GenAI, the GRU and the PLA are going to have access to it too. This idea that the authorities who would control GenAI wouldn’t maliciously deploy it against you is a fantasy.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    It's not like me having AI is gonna keep the GRU from using it. I'd rather only the GRU have AI; it reduces risk. The point is not that only the good people should have it, the point is that who has it is less important than as few people have it as possible.
- slaveurit 2y ago
  [flagged]
- sfink 2y ago
  > And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Only if you're looking at the more obvious but wrong culture war. Elites from both "sides" have more in common with each other than with the rest of humanity. We just don't notice the perspective they're pushing nearly as much because we're not being spoonfed the debate and rage-bait as we are with the left vs right conflict.

skybrian 2y ago

I find this style of reasoning ("you wouldn't want just the elites to have it") to be unpersuasive. I think it would be better if random people on the street didn't have it. Similarly, I'm glad there aren't any people in my neighborhood who have all the weapons that the Russians and North Koreans and organized crime have.

AmericanChopper 2y ago
A lot of people will agree with this sentiment when the hazard is firearms or other weapons. But in this case the “hazard” is information, and the ability to process and distribute it. Entrusting an authority to regulate that to the extent that would be required to regulate GenAI is a far more dystopian proposition than regulating gun ownership.

protomolecule 2y ago

Now ask the same question about nuclear bombs or modification of viruses.

FeepingCreature 2y ago

Definitely less harmful if only the elites have it. It doesn't make them harder to kill, but it reduces proliferation. And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Generally speaking if you think most of the danger of any technology comes from accidents, you want fewer people to have it and don't care too much which ones it is, though it'd be preferable if they had a lot to lose.

AmericanChopper 2y ago
> And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Even if you trust your own government, which I would suggest is misguided (the known propaganda programs that have come out of the DOD alone should be enough to dispel this trust), in a world where only the regulating authorities have access to GenAI, the GRU and the PLA are going to have access to it too. This idea that the authorities who would control GenAI wouldn’t maliciously deploy it against you is a fantasy.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  It's not like me having AI is gonna keep the GRU from using it. I'd rather only the GRU have AI; it reduces risk. The point is not that only the good people should have it, the point is that who has it is less important than as few people have it as possible.
slaveurit 2y ago
[flagged]
sfink 2y ago
> And "elites" per se isn't correlated with any political side, so it doesn't even change the culture war. Only if you're looking at the more obvious but wrong culture war. Elites from both "sides" have more in common with each other than with the rest of humanity. We just don't notice the perspective they're pushing nearly as much because we're not being spoonfed the debate and rage-bait as we are with the left vs right conflict.