5 ms·

People are going to be developing these no matter what. Whether it wipes us out or not is just up to fate really.

• esafak 2y ago
  We can constrain their use, as with nuclear materials.
  • fizx 2y ago
    Nuclear materials have the advantages of being rare, dangerous to handle, and hard to copy over the internet.
  • johanneskanybal 2y ago
    No not really. There's no power in the world that can restrain this in it's current form even mildly much less absolutly. Why do you think that would be even slightly possible?
    • esafak 2y ago
      For the same reason we can regulate other things? Encryption is regulated, for example. There "just" needs to be international co-operation, in the case of AI.
      • grayfaced 2y ago
        How's that going for Tornado Cash?
  • redeux 2y ago
    At some point in the probably near future it will be much simpler to create an autonomous AI agent than a nuclear bomb.
    • hollerith 2y ago
      So let's avoid that future.
    • esafak 2y ago
      True, so we need to make sure we don't find ourselves in a mess before it happens. Right now I don't see nearly enough concern given to risk management in industry. The safeguards companies put on their models are trivially subverted by hackers. We don't even know how to cope with an AI that would attempt to subvert its own constitution.
  • roenxi 2y ago
    Despite doing a pretty decent job of containing the risk we're still on the clock until something terrible happens with nuclear war. Humanity appears to be well on track to killing millions to billions of people; rolling the dice relatively regularly waiting for a 1% chance to materialize. If we only handle AI that well doom is probable. It has economic uses, unlike nuclear weapons, so there will be a thriving black market dodging the safety concerns.
  • gcanyon 2y ago
    It is a lot easier to detect illicit nuclear work compared to illicit AI work.
    • hollerith 2y ago
      It is hard to hide anything that uses as much electricity as a large training run. Also there are only a few companies that can fab the semiconductors needed for these training runs.
      • nickthegreek 2y ago
        You will run an autonomous ai agent on your own hardware or by having your own local ai pass out commands to distributed systems online, ai, real people, or just good old fashioned programming. There is no stopping this.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • hollerith 2y ago
          It is in fact possible to stop training runs that consume billions of dollars in electricity and in GPU rental or depreciation costs. If no one does such a training run, then no one can release the weights of the model that would have been produced by the run, so you won't be able to run the model (which would never come into existence) on your own hardware. I don't care if you run DeepSeek R1 in your basement till the end of time. What my friends and I want to stop is the creation of more capable future models. It is also quite possible for our society to decide that deep learning is too dangerous and to outlaw teaching and publishing about it, which would not completely stop the discovery of algorithmic deep-learning improvements (because some committed deep-learning enthusiasts would break the law) but would slow the discovery rate way, way down.
          • nickthegreek 2y ago
            But it’s not actually possible for our society to decide that. In the real world, at this moment when laws and norms are gone and a billionaire obsessed with AI has power, that will 100% not happen. It won’t happen in the next several years, and that is the time left to do what you are saying. Pretending otherwise is a waste of time.
  • bamboozled 2y ago
    Look at who has access to US nuclear codes now. I don’t believe it’s as constrained as you think.
• ASalazarMX 2y ago
  In the incredible case that we develop fully autonomous agents capable of crippling the world, that would mean we developed fully autonomous agents capable of keeping it safe. Unless the first one is so advanced no other can challenge it, that is.
  • wendyshu 2y ago
    Fallacious
  • grayfaced 2y ago
    How did you jump to that conclusion? The agent will be limited by the capabilities under its control. We have the technological ability to cripple world now and we don't have the technological means to prevent it. Give one AI control of the whole US arsenal and the objective of ending the world. Give another AI the capabilities of the rest of the world and the objective of protecting it. Would you feel safe?
    • ASalazarMX 2y ago
      > We have the technological ability to cripple world now and we don't have the technological means to prevent it Humans have prevented it many times, but not specifically by technological ability. If Putin/Trump/Xi Ping wanted a global nuclear war, they'd better have the means to launch the nukes themselves in secret because the chain of command will challenge them. If an out-of-control AI could discover a circuitous way to access nukes, an antagonist AI of equal capabilities should be able to figure it out too, and warn the humans in the loop. I agree that AI development should be made responsibly, but not all people do, and it's impossible to put the cat back in the bag. The limiting factor these days is hardware, as a true AGI will likely need even more of it than our current LLMs.
      • grayfaced 2y ago
        Out-of-control AI is sci-fi fearmongering, it's not about worming through systems. It will be doing exactly what it was placed there to do. It will be a human failing that puts armageddon in it's hands. And since humans have NO MEANS to prevent armageddon (The predominant policy is in fact doubling down on destruction with MAD), there will be no way to place AI in command of this defense. The asymmetrical relationship between destruction and creation will mean there will never be a defense.