3 ms·

Yodkowsky shouldn’t be taken seriously. Especially after him saying that any person or country working on banned AI research should have their data centers dest

Yodkowsky shouldn’t be taken seriously. Especially after him saying that any person or country working on banned AI research should have their data centers destroyed via an airstrike.

beeflet 2y ago
Can you make a case against this? It seems plausible to me that AI could be used as a weapon of mass destruction
- FactKnower69 2y ago
  americans unironically trying to justify air strikes using the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" in 2024 -- to describe a fucking computer program, no less -- is so far beyond parody wonder if this guy considers stuxnet a wmd
  - beeflet 2y ago
    I think people should generally be allowed to own weapons and general purpose computers, I don't think anyone has a right to build a doomsday device in their garage. If it is impossible to reconcile these, then freedom will be impossible. The only long-term solution is to develop "anti-doomsday" technology. If you have a massive warehouse to train an AI that, IDK folds proteins to develop a bioweapon or something, then you should not expect everyone else to sit on their hands while you plan to hold the entire world hostage. Stuxnet was a program that targeted specifically SCADA controllers used in uranium enrichment facilities. It is not a doomsday device, it is a targeted counter-doomsday device. And while the USA has an imperfect track record with respect to "WMD"s/Proliferation, stuxnet is something that I approve of as an american.
    - nirav72 2y ago
      >folds proteins to develop a bioweapon or something That has been possible for a long time. The only thing needed was raw compute power to simulate it. Not sure how AI research suddenly makes itself worthy of a airstrike based on clearly unproven scenarios. What makes you think a rogue nation will sink ridiculous amounts of money building the power , cooling infrastructure, acquiring the necessary computing hardware and knowledge to build an hypothetical tool that will aid them in making a WMD - when they could just create tanks of sarin gas or anthrax for a fraction of the cost plus manpower that could be delivered to the target in multiple ways? A rogue nation having the capability to build AI datacenters, will also have the ability to do simple risk/benefit analysis.

Yodkowsky shouldn’t be taken seriously. Especially after him saying that any person or country working on banned AI research should have their data centers destroyed via an airstrike.

beeflet 2y ago

Can you make a case against this? It seems plausible to me that AI could be used as a weapon of mass destruction

FactKnower69 2y ago
americans unironically trying to justify air strikes using the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" in 2024 -- to describe a fucking computer program, no less -- is so far beyond parody wonder if this guy considers stuxnet a wmd
- beeflet 2y ago
  I think people should generally be allowed to own weapons and general purpose computers, I don't think anyone has a right to build a doomsday device in their garage. If it is impossible to reconcile these, then freedom will be impossible. The only long-term solution is to develop "anti-doomsday" technology. If you have a massive warehouse to train an AI that, IDK folds proteins to develop a bioweapon or something, then you should not expect everyone else to sit on their hands while you plan to hold the entire world hostage. Stuxnet was a program that targeted specifically SCADA controllers used in uranium enrichment facilities. It is not a doomsday device, it is a targeted counter-doomsday device. And while the USA has an imperfect track record with respect to "WMD"s/Proliferation, stuxnet is something that I approve of as an american.
  - nirav72 2y ago
    >folds proteins to develop a bioweapon or something That has been possible for a long time. The only thing needed was raw compute power to simulate it. Not sure how AI research suddenly makes itself worthy of a airstrike based on clearly unproven scenarios. What makes you think a rogue nation will sink ridiculous amounts of money building the power , cooling infrastructure, acquiring the necessary computing hardware and knowledge to build an hypothetical tool that will aid them in making a WMD - when they could just create tanks of sarin gas or anthrax for a fraction of the cost plus manpower that could be delivered to the target in multiple ways? A rogue nation having the capability to build AI datacenters, will also have the ability to do simple risk/benefit analysis.