IMHO it's not, it just parrots the same old arguments for "safety", arguing against straw-men and framing the other side as having wrong assumptions about AI sa

IMHO it's not, it just parrots the same old arguments for "safety", arguing against straw-men and framing the other side as having wrong assumptions about AI safety/being unfair/etc, all while not going into the principled counter-arguments and their own assumptions at all. Here are some counter-points: Regulation: - Very little effort is made to evaluate risk of over-regulating, regulatory capture and counterproductive wrong regulation - The downside of under-regulating is vastly overemphasized, most arguments boil down to "we have to act FAST now or x BAD thing might happen" - The risk of over/wrongly regulating is vastly under emphasized with the same FUD reasons. - according to one of the many straw-men argument in the pod I'm a libertarian against any and all regulation because I criticize possible regulatory capture, I would enthusiastically support regulation that foundation models have to be: -- given freely to public researchers/academics for in-depth independent safety-research -- open weighted after a while (e.g. after ~ a year, safety concerns should be mostly ruled out and new generations are out so ROI is already likely there. [e.g. there's NO safety reason at all for ClosedAI to not release gpt-3.5, llama3 is better already]) Proposed FLOP cut-off of SB 1047: - according to the pod, the cut off is much more advanced than anything currently released. - The 10^26 FLOP cutoff is way to low, llama-405b is ~4×10^25 FLOPs - 405B is maybe 20% smarter than 70B, while taking over an order of magnitude more FLOPS to train, the cutoff itself is very likely not much smarter than the current SOTA. - IMO none of the current SOTA models are very dangerous, but kill switch regulation is. Kill-Switches: - SB 1047 is (non-explicitly) calling for kill-switches over the cut-off due to liability of the model creators and market dynamics - Any kill-switch regulation means a complete dead-end to any advanced open-weights AI. This means that huge corporations and governments will control any and all advanced AI-development. This is top-down control of the maths you are allowed to run on your computer IMO that is Orwellian as fuck. China: - mentioning china is FUD 101, it's basically AI's "think of the children" - If they think they can stop china from building their own advanced LLMs, they're delusional. This regulation might even help them to get there faster. They don't even need to steal, there maybe a year or two behind the SOTA and catching up fast. I just don't get how so many people on a site with "hacker" in the name want to make it impossible to hack on these things for anyone not employed by the big corporate AI research labs.