4 ms·
I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually o
by zamadatix 2y ago
I don't think GP is dismissing the scenarios themselves, rather espousing their belief these answers will do nothing to prevent said scenarios from eventually occuring anyways. It's like if we invented nukes but found out they were made out of having a lot of telephones instead of something exotic like refining radioactive elements a certain way. Sure - you can still try to restrict telephone sales... but one way or another lots of nukes are going to be built around the world (power plants too) and, in the meantime, what you've regulated away is the convenience of having a better phone from the average person as time goes on.
The same battle was/is had around cryptography - telling people they can't use or distribute cryptography algorithms on consumer hardware never stopped bad people from having real time functionally unbreakable encryption.
The safety plan must be around somehow handling the resulting problems when they happen, not hoping to make it never occur even once for the rest of time. Eventually a bad guy is going to make an indecipherable call, eventually an enemy country or rogue operator is going to nuke a place, eventually an AI is going to ${scifi_ai_thing}. The safety of all society can't rest on audits and good intention preventing those from ever happening.
- marshray 2y agoIt's an interesting analogy. Nukes are a far more primitive technology (i.e., enrichment requires only more basic industrial capabilities) than AI hardware, yet they are probably the best example of tech limitations via international agreements. But the algorithms are mostly public knowledge, datacenters are no secret, and the chips aren't even made in the US. I don't see what leverage California has to regulate AI broadly. So it seems like the only thing such a bill would achieve is to incentivize AI research to avoid California.
- derektank 2y ago>So it seems like the only thing such a bill would achieve is to incentivize AI research to avoid California. Which, incidentally, would be pretty bad from a climate change perspective since many of the alternative locations for datacenters have a worse mix of renewables/nuclear to fossil fuels in their electricity generation. ~60% of VA's electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels (of which 1/12th is still coal) while natural gas makes up less than 40% of electricity generation in California, for example
- marshray 2y agoElectric power crosses state lines, very little loss. It's looking like cooling water may be more of a limiting factor. Yet, even this can be greatly reduced when electric power is cheap enough. Solar power is already "cheaper than free" in many places and times. If the initial winner-take-all training race ever slows down, perhaps training can be scheduled for energy cost-optimal times and places.
- derektank 2y agoTransmission losses aren't negligible without investment in costly infrastructure like HVDC connections. It's always more efficient to site electricity generation as close to generation as feasibly possible.
- marshray 2y agoElectric power transmission loss is less than 5%: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/flow-graphs/electricity... 14.26 Net generation 0.67 "Transmission and delivery losses and unaccounted for" It's just a tiny fraction of the losses resulting from burning fuel to heat water to produce steam to drive a turbine to yield electric power.
- bunabhucan 2y agoThat's the average. It's bought and sold on a spot market. If you try to sell CA power in AZ and the losses are 10% then SRP or TEP or whoever can undercut your price with local power/lower losses.
- marshray 2y agoI just don't see 10% remaining a big deal while solar continues its exponential cost reduction. Solar does not consume fuel, so when local supply exceeds local demand the cost of incremental production drops to approximately zero. Nobody's undercutting zero, even with 10% losses. IMO, this is what 'winning' looks like.
- tbrownaw 2y ago> Nukes are a far more primitive technology (i.e., enrichment requires only more basic industrial capabilities) than AI hardware, yet they are probably the best example of tech limitations via international agreements. And direct sabotage, eg Stuxnet. And outright assassination eg https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55128970
- hannasm 2y agoIf you think a solution to bad behavior is a law declaring punishment for such behavior you are a fool.
- rebolek 2y agoMurder is a bad behavior. Am I a fool to think there should be laws against murder?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]