23 ms·

US and UK refuse to sign AI safety declaration at summit

• miohtama 2y ago
  Sums it up: “Vance just dumped water all over that. [It] was like, ‘Yeah, that’s cute. But guess what? You know you’re actually not the ones who are making the calls here. It’s us,’” said McBride.
  • consp 2y ago
    The bullies are in charge. Prepare to get beaten to the curb and your lunch money stolen.
    • swarnie 2y ago
      It been that way for... 300 years? Those with the biggest economies and/or most guns has changed a few times but the behaviours haven't and probably never will.
      • gyomu 2y ago
        If you’re making sweeping statements like that, why the arbitrary distinction at 300 years? What happened then? Why not say “since the dawn of humanity”?
        • lucky1759 2y ago
          It's not some arbitrary distinction from 300 years ago, it's something called "the Enlightenment".
          • gyomu 2y ago
            The bullies with most guns and biggest economies have been in charge since the Enlightenment? Huh?
        • kabouseng 2y ago
          Probably referring to the period that pax Britannia and pax Americana have been the global hegemon.
        • swarnie 2y ago
          I was keeping it simple for the majority.
      • computerthings 2y ago
        That's what Europeans thought for centuries, until Germany overdid it. Then we had new ideas, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
        • FirmwareBurner 2y ago
          The declaration of human rights, like a lot of other laws, declarations and similar pieces of paper signed by politicians, have zero value without the corresponding enforcement, and are often just there for optics so that taxpayers feel like their elected leaders are making good use of their money and are on the side of good. And the extent of which you can do global enforcement (which is often biased and selective) is limited by the reach of your economic and military power. Which is why the US outspends the rest of the world military powers combined and how the US and their troops have waged ilegal wars and committed numerous crimes abroad and gotten away with it despite pieces of papers saying what they're doing is bad, but their reaction was always "what are you gonna do about it?". See how many atrocities have happened under the watch of the UN. Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real. Which is why the bullies get to define the laws that everyone else has to follow because they have the monopoly on enforcement.
          • computerthings 2y ago
            The same is true for the HN comment I replied to, which was basically going *shrug*, but also without any army to enforce that. So I pointed out that some people went beyond just shrugging, because it could not go on like this; and here is what they wrote. Just reading these things does a person good, and to stand up for these things you first have to know them.
          • pjc50 2y ago
            > Laws aren't real, it's the enforcement that is real Well, yes. This is why people have been paying a lot of attention to what exactly "rule of law" means in the US, and what was just norms that can be discarded.
    • Xelbair 2y ago
      i mean.. you need power to enforce your values. and UK hasn't been in power for a long time. "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" Unless you can stand on equal field - either by alliance, or by your own power - you aren't a negotiating partner, and i say that as European.
      • wobfan 2y ago
        > "If you are not capable of violence, you are not peaceful. You are harmless" this is exactly the value that caused so much war and death all over the world, for decades and thousands of years. still, even in 2025, it's being followed. are we doomed, chat?
        • pjc50 2y ago
          US sending clear signals to countries that they should start thinking about their own nuclear proliferation, even if that means treaty-breaking.
        • GlacierFox 2y ago
          The emphasis is the word capable here. I think there's a difference between a country using their capability of violence to actually be violent and a one with the tangible capability using it for peace.
        • jddj 2y ago
          There are peaceful strategies that are temporarily stable in the face of actors who capitalise on peaceful actors to take their resources, but they usually (always?) take the form of quickly moving on when an aggressor arrives. Eg. birds abandoning rather than defending a perch when another approaches. We're typically not happy to do that, though you can see it happening in some parts of the world right now. Some kind of enlightened state where violent competition for resources (incl. status & power) no longer makes sense is imaginable, but seems a long way off.
          • Yoric 2y ago
            Just to clarify, who's the aggressor in what you write? The US?
    • gardenhedge 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • ahiknsr 2y ago
        [dead]
    • xyzal 2y ago
      I think the saddest fact about it is that not even the US state weilds the power. It is some sociopathic bussinessmen.
      • ta1243 2y ago
        Businessmen have been far more powerful than states for at least the last 20 years
        • Nasrudith 2y ago
          Generally I can't help but see 'more powerful than the government' claims forever poisoned from their shallow use in the context of cryptography. Where it was used in a rhetorical tantrum throwing response to their power refuse to do the impossible like make an encryption backdoor 'only for good guys' and have the sheer temerity to stand against arbitrary exercises of authority by using the courts to check them only to their actual power. If actual 'more powerful than the states' occurs they have nobody to blame but themselves for crying wolf.
    • gardenhedge 2y ago
      My response to "the bullies are in charge" has been downvoted and flagged yet what I am responding to remains up. It's a different opinion on the same topic started by GP. Either both should stay or both should go.
  • Dalewyn 2y ago
    I love the retelling of "I don't really care, Margaret." here. But politics aside, this also points to something I've said numerous times here before: In order to write the rulebook you need to be a creator. Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules. As far as "AI" is concerned, the creators are squarely the United States and presumably China. The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around. If you want to be the rulemaker, be a creator; not a litigator.
    • consp 2y ago
      Sure you can. Outright ban it. Or do what china does, copy it and say the rules do not matter.
    • mvc 2y ago
      > Only those who actually make and build and invent things get to write the rules Create things? Or destroy them? Seems in reality, the most powerful nations are the ones who have acquired the greatest potential to destroy things. Creation is worthless if the dude next door is prepared to burn your house down because you look different to him.
    • cowboylowrez 2y ago
      if your both the creator and rulemaker then this is the magic combo to a peaceful and beneficial society for the entire planet! or maybe not.
    • gardenhedge 2y ago
      What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral_AI?
    • piltdownman 2y ago
      > The EU, Japan, et al. being mere consumers sincerely cannot write the rules because they have no weight to throw around Exactly what I'd expect someone from a country where the economy is favoured over the society to say - particularly in the context of consumer protection. You want access to a trade union of consumers? You play by the rules of that Union. American exceptionalism doesn't negate that. A large technical moat does. But DeepSeek has jumped in and revealed how shallow that moat really is for AI at this neonatal stage.
  • enugu 2y ago
    AI doesn't look it will be restricted to one country. A breakthrough becomes common place in a matter of years. So that paraphrase of Vance's remarks, if accurate, would mean that he is wrong. The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security, like after the invention of nuclear weapons. A degradation in security, which requires collective action. Even worse, chaos could be caused by small groups weaponizing the technology against high profile targets. If anything, the larger nations might be much more forceful about AI regulation than the above summit by demanding an NPT style treaty where only a select club has access to the technology in exchange for other nations having access to the applications of AI from servers hosted by the club.
    • logicchains 2y ago
      >The danger of something like AI+drones (or less imminent, AI+bioengineering) can lead to a severe degradation of security For smaller countries nukes represented an increase in security, not a degradation. North Korea probably wouldn't still be independent today if it didn't have nukes, and Russia would never have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes. Restricting access to nukes is only in the interest of big countries that want to bully small countries around, because nukes level the playing field. The same applies to AI.
      • enugu 2y ago
        The comment was not speaking in favour of restrictionism, (I don't support it) but what strategy the more powerful states will adopt. Regarding an increase in security with nukes, what you say applies for exceptions against a general non-nuclear background. Without restrictions, every small country could have a weapon, with a danger of escalation behind every conflict, authoritatrians using a nuclear option as a protection against a revolt etc. The likelihood of nuclear war would be much more(even with the current situation, there have been close shaves)
      • idunnoman1222 2y ago
        Drones have AI you can buy them on AliExpress express what is your point?
  • mk89 2y ago
    I see it differently. They need to dismantle bureaucracy to accelerate, NOT add new international agreements etc that would slow them down. Once they become leaders, they will come up with such agreements to impose their "model" and way to do things. Right now they need to accelerate and not get stuck.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• chrisjj 2y ago
  Previous: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/us-uk-paris-ai-summit-artificial-intelligence-declaration https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/us-uk-par...
• yapyap 2y ago
  [flagged]
• pjc50 2y ago
  My two thoughts on this: - there's a real threat from AI to the open internet by drowning it in spam, fraud, and misinformation - current "AI safety" work does basically nothing to address this and is kind of pointless It's important that AI-enabled processes which affect humans are fair. But that's just a subset of a general demand for justice from the machine of society, whether it's implemented by humans or AIs or abacuses. Which comes back to demanding fair treatment from your fellow humans, because we haven't solved the human "alignment problem".
  • thih9 2y ago
    And of course people responsible for AI disruptions would love to sell solutions for the problems they created too. Notably[1]: > Worldcoin's business is to provide a reliable way to authenticate humans online, which it calls World ID. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
    • robohoe 2y ago
      “Tools for Humanity” and “for-profit” in a single sentence lost me.
  • tigerlily 2y ago
    And so it seems we await the imminent arrival of a new eternal September of unfathomable scale; indeed as we deliberate, that wave may already be cresting, breaking upon every corner of the known internet. O wherefore this moment?
  • dgb23 2y ago
    From a consumer's perspective I want declaration. I want to know whether an image or video is largely generated by AI, especially when it comes to news. Images and video often imply that they are evidence of something actually happening. I don't know how this would be achieved. I also don't care. I just want people to be accountable and transparent.
    • cameronh90 2y ago
• raverbashing 2y ago
  Honestly those declarations are more hot air and virtue signaling than anything else. And even more honestly, nobody cares
• beardyw 2y ago
  DeepMind has it's headquarters and most of it's staff in London.
  • graemep 2y ago
    and what is the other country that refused to sign? They will move to countries where the laws suit them. Generally business as usual these days and why big businesses have such a strong bargaining position with regard to national governments. Both the current British and American governments are very pro big-business anyway. That is why Trump has stated he likes Starmer so much.
• smashah 2y ago
  [flagged]
• olivierduval 2y ago
  At the same time, "Europeans think US is 'necessary partner' not 'ally'" (https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/12/europeans-think-us-is-necessary-partner-not-ally-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/02/12/europeans-thin...) I wonder why... maybe because it look like US replaced some "moral values" (not talking about "woke values" here, just plain "humanistic values" like in Human Rights Declaration) with "bottom line values" :-)
  • ahiknsr 2y ago
    > I wonder why Hmm. > Donald Trump had a fiery phone call with Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen over his demands to buy Greenland, according to senior European officials. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/25/trump-greenland-denmark https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/25/trump-greenlan... > The president has said America pays $200bn a year 'essentially in subsidy' to Canada and that if the country was the 51st state of the US 'I don’t mind doing it', in an interview broadcast before the Super Bowl in New Orleans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2025/feb/10/trump-tells-fox-news-that-canada-would-be-much-better-off-being-a-51st-state-video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2025/feb/10/trump-...
• 1ra4hs9F 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • yodsanklai 2y ago
    > And steal Gaza and Greenland as well. You mean "Red, White, and Blueland" https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1161?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22H.r.1161%22%7D&s=1&r=9 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1161...
    • tw12312 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • n4r9 2y ago
        > Tell him to get the out of the EU and take his "magnificent seven" tech companies with him. Is this not exactly what the EU are doing? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/22/world/video/danish-official-responds-donald-trump-greenland-purchase-digvid https://edition.cnn.com/2025/01/22/world/video/danish-offici... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60870287 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60870287
  • smcin 2y ago
    Tune in at the next G7 summit in Alberta, Canada, June 2025.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• mtkd 2y ago
  Given what is potentially at stake if you're not the first nation to achieve ASI, it's a little late to start imposing any restrictions or adding distractions Similarly, whoever gains the most training and fine-tuning data from whatever source via whatever means first -- will likely be at advantage Hard to see how that toothpaste goes back in the tube now
• mrtksn 2y ago
  Is this the declaration? https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/pledge-for-a-trustworthy-ai-in-the-world-of-work https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/pledge-for-... It appears to be essentially "We promise not to do evil" declaration. It contains things like "Ensure AI eliminates biases in recruitment and does not exclude underrepresented groups.". What's the point of rejecting this? Seems like a show, just like the declaration itself. Depending on what side of the things you are, if you don't actually take a look at it you might end up believing that US is planning to do evil and others want to eliminate evil or alternatively you might believe that US is pushing for progress when EU is trying to slow it down. Both appear false to me, IMHO its just another instance of US signing off from the global world and whatever "evil" US is planning to do China will do it better for cheaper anyway.
  • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • jampekka 2y ago
      Inclusive here means that the population at large benefits. But I guess that's woke now too.
      • logicchains 2y ago
        It mentions "promoting diversity, tackling gender imbalances" which clearly indicates they're using "inclusive" in the woke sense of the word.
    • mrtksn 2y ago
      US just needs to have their culture war done already. These words are not about the American petty fights but it appears that the new government is all for it. It's kind of fascinating actually how Americans turned the whole pop culture into genitalia regulations and racist wealth redistribution. Before that in EU we had all this stuff and wasn't a problem. These stuff were about minorities and minorities stuff don't bother most people as these are just accommodations for small number of people. I'm kind of getting sick and tired of pretending that stuff that concern %1 of the people are the mainstream thing. It's insufferable.
• antonkar 2y ago
  I’m honestly shocked that we still don’t have a direct-democratic constitution for the world and AIs - something like pol.is with an x.com-style simpler UI (Claude has a constitution drafted with pol.is by a few hundred people but it's not updatable). We’ve managed to write the entire encyclopedia together, but we don't have a simple place to choose a high-level set of values that most of us can get behind. I propose solutions to the current and multiversal AI alignment here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LaruPAWaZk9KpC25A/rational-utopia-and-multiversal-ai-alignment-steerable-asi https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LaruPAWaZk9KpC25A/rational-u...
  • dragonwriter 2y ago
    > We’ve managed to write the entire encyclopedia together, but we don't have a simple place to choose a high-level set of values that most of us can get behind. Information technology was never the constraint preventing moral consensus the way it was for, say, aggregating information. Not only is that a problem with achieiving the goals you lay out, its also the problem with the false assumption that they are goals most would agree should be solved as you have framed them.
  • idunnoman1222 2y ago
    I think 99% of what less wrong says is completely out to lunch. I think 100% of large language model and vision model safety has just made the world less fun. now what.
  • numpad0 2y ago
    I don't think it does what you think it does. You'll end up taking sides on India and China fighting on rights and equality and giving in to wild stuffs like deconstruction and taxation for churches. It'll be just a huge mess and devastation of your high-level set of values, unless you'll be interfering with it so routinely that it will be nothing more than a facade for quite outdated form of totalitarianism.
    • staunton 2y ago
      This reads like word salad to me...
• blarg1 2y ago
  computer says no
• ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  Most likely the countries who will have unconstrained AGIs will get to advance technologically by leaps and bounds. And those who constrain it will remain in the "stone age" when it comes to it.
  • sschueller 2y ago
    Those countries with unrestricted AGI will be the ones letting AI decide if you live or die depending on cost savings for share holders...
    • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      Not if Skynet emerges first and we all die :)) With every technological advancement it can always be good or bad. I believe it is going to be good to have a true AI available at our fingertips.
      • mdhb 2y ago
        Ok but what lead you to that particular belief in the first place? Because I can think of a large number of historical scenarios where malicious people get access to certain capabilities and it absolutely does not go well and you do have to somehow account for the fact that this is a real thing that is going to happen.
        • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
          I thibk today there are are less malicious people than in the past. And considering that most people will use the AI for good, there is a good chance that the bad people will be easier to identify.
          • cess11 2y ago
            Why do you think that? There's more people than ever and it's easier than ever for the ones with malicious impulses to find and communicate with each other. For example, several governments are actively engaged in a live streamed genocide and nothing akin to the 1789 revolt in Paris seems to be underway.
• bilekas 2y ago
  Yeah, it's behavior like this that really makes people cheer for companies like DeepSeek to stick it to the US. A little bit of Schadenfreude would feel really good right about now, what bothers me so much is that it's just symbolic for the US and UK NOT to sign these 'promises'. It's not as if anyone would believe that the commitments would be followed through with. It's frustrating at first, but in reality this is a nothing burger, just emphasizing their ignorance. > “The Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the US, with American-designed and manufactured chips,” Sure, those american AI chips that are just pumping out right now. You'd think the administration would have advisers who know how things work.
  • balls187 2y ago
    My sense was the promise of DeepSeek (at least at the time) was that there was a way to provide control back to the people, rather than a handful of mega corporations that will partner with anyone that will pay them.
  • karaterobot 2y ago
    > Yeah, it's behavior like this that really makes people cheer for companies like DeepSeek to stick it to the US. That would be a kneejerk, short-sighted, self-destructive position to take, so I can believe people would do it.
• jampekka 2y ago
  “Partnering with them [China] means chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in and seize your information infrastructure,” Vance said. At least they aren't threatening to invade our countries or extorting privileged position.
  • pb7 2y ago
    Except they are: Taiwan.
  • Hwetaj 2y ago
    Sir, this is a Wendy's! Please do not defend Europe against its master here! Pay up, just like Hegseth has demanded today.
  • karaterobot 2y ago
    Threatening Taiwan, actually invading Tibet and Vietnam within living memory, and extorting privileged positions in Africa and elsewhere. Not to mention supporting puppet governments throughout the world, just like the U.S.
• snickerbockers 2y ago
  AI isn't like nuclear fission. You can't remotely detect that somebody is training an AI. It's far too late to sequester all the information related to AI like what was done with uranium enrichment. The equipment needed to train AI is cheap and ubiquitous. These "safety declarations" are toothless and impossible to enforce. You can't stop AI, you need to adapt. Video and pictures will soon have no evidentiary value. Real life relationships must be valued over online relationships because you know the other person is real. It's unfortunate, but nothing AI is "disrupting" existed 200 years ago and people will learn to adapt like they always have. To quote the fictional comic book villain Toyo Harada, "none of you can stop me. Not any one of you individually nor the whole of you collectively."
  • sam_lowry_ 2y ago
    > You can't remotely detect that somebody is training an AI. Probably not the same way you can detect working centrifuges in Iran... but you definitely can.
    • snickerbockers 2y ago
      Like what? All I can think of is tracking GPU purchases but that won't be possible when AMD and NV have viable international competitors.
      • mdhb 2y ago
        There’s a famous saying in cryptography that says “anyone is capable of building encryption algorithm that they can’t break” which I am absolutely positively sure applies here also. In a world full of sensors where everything is logged in some way or another I think that it would actually be not a straightforward activity at all to build a clandestine AI lab at any scale. In the professional intel community they have been talking about this as a general problem for at least a decade now.
        • jsty 2y ago
          > In the professional intel community they have been talking about this as a general problem for at least a decade now. As in they've been discussing detecting clandestine AI labs? Or just how almost no activity is now in principle undetectable?
• aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
• puff_pastry 2y ago
  They’re right, the declaration is useless and it’s just an exercise in futility
• waltercool 2y ago
  That is a good thing, if we want AI companies to be competitive enough. If you add regulations, people will use other AI companies from countries without them. The only result of that would be losing the AI race. You can see this at Huggingface top models, fine-tuned models are way more popular than official ones. And this is also good considering most companies (even China) offer their models free to download and use locally. Democratizing AI is the good approach here.
  • ViktorRay 2y ago
    You raise an interesting point. What would this declaration mean for free and open source models? For example Deepseek uses the MIT License.
• tehjoker 2y ago
  No different than how the U.S. doesn't sign on to the declaration of the rights of children or landmine treaties etc
• r00fus 2y ago
  All this "AI safety" is purely moat-building for the likes of OpenAI et. al. to prevent upstarts like DeepSeek. LLMs will not get us to AGI. Not even close. Altman talking about this danger is like Musk talking about driverless taxis.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • ryaniscool 2y ago
    Half moat-building, half marketing. The need for "safety" implies some awesome power. Don't get me wrong, they are impressive. I can see LLM's eventually enabling people to be 10x more productive in jobs that interact with a computer all day.
    • bombcar 2y ago
      > The need for "safety" implies some awesome power. This is a big part of it, and you can get others to do it for you. It's like the drain cleaner sold in an extra bag. Obviously it must be the best, it's so scary they have to put it in a bag!
    • r00fus 2y ago
      So it's a tool like the internal combustion engine, or the moveable typeset. Game-changing technology that may alter society but not dangerous like nukes.
    • timewizard 2y ago
      > eventually enabling people to be 10x more productive in jobs that interact with a computer all day. I doubt this. Productivity is gained through experience and expertise. If you don't know what you don't know than the LLM is perfectly useless to you.
    • ksynwa 2y ago
      Are you not alarmed by the startling discoveries made by the hard-at-work researchers where LLMs lie (when explicitly told to) and copy their source files (when explicitly told to)?
• option 2y ago
  did China sign?
  • vindex10 2y ago
    that's what confused me: > Among the priorities set out in the joint declaration signed by countries including China, India, and Germany was “reinforcing international co-operation to promote co-ordination in international governance.” so looks like they did , at the same time, the goal of the declaration and summit to become less reliant on US and China. > Meanwhile, Europe is seeking a foothold in the AI industry to avoid becoming too reliant on the US or China. So basically Europe signed together with China to compete against US/UK or what happend?
    • tim333 2y ago
      The agreement doesn't mean much. It's just a list of good intentions. Most counties were fine to say yeah I'll do good things if it's not binding. Vance & Trump were an exception to that.
      • vindex10 2y ago
        It is not binding, but it is still a public statement
• doright 2y ago
  Something tells me aspects of living in the next few decades driven by technology acceleration will feel like being lobotomized while conscious and watching oneself the whole time. Like yes, we are able to think of thousands of hypothetical ways technology (even those inferior to full AGI) could go off the rails in a catastrophic way and post and discuss these scenarios endlessly... and yet it doesn't result in a slowing or stopping of the progress leading there. All it takes is a single group with enough collective intelligence and breakthroughs and the next AI will be delivered to our doorstop whether or not we asked for it. It reminds me of the time I read books in my youth and only 20 years later realized the authors of some of those books were trying to deliver a important life messages to a teenager undergoing crucial changes, all of which would be painfully relevant to the current adult me... and yet the whole time they fell on deaf ears. Like the message was right there but I did not have the emotional/perceptive intelligence to pick up on and internalize it for too long.
  • Nasrudith 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology? You might as well say we can prevent climate change by just saying no to the outcome!
    • estebank 2y ago
      We no longer use asbestos as a flame flame retardant in houses. We no longer use chemicals harmful to the ozone layer on spray cans. We no longer use lead in gasoline. We figured those things were bad, and changed what we did. If evidence is available ahead of time that something is harmful, it shouldn't be controversial to avoid widespread adoption.
      • josefritzishere 2y ago
        I don't think it is safe to assume the use patterns of tangible things extend to intangible things; nor the patterns of goods to that of services. I just see this as a conclusory leap.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• dsign 2y ago
  I know I'm an oddball when it comes to the stuff that crosses my mind, but here I go anyway. It's possible to stop developing things. It's not even hard; most of the world develops very little. Developing things requires capital, education, hard work, social stability and the rule of law. Many of us writing on this forum take those things for granted but it's more the exception than the rule, when you look at the entire planet. I think we will face the scenario of runaway AI, where we lose control, and we may not survive. I don't think it will be a sky-net type of thing, sudden. At least not at first. What will happen is that we will replace humans by AIs in more and more positions of influence and power, gradually. Our ChatGPTs of today will become board members and government advisors of tomorrow. It will take some decades--though probably not many. Then, a face-off will come one day, perhaps. Humans vs them. But if we do survive and come to regret the development of advanced AI and have a second chance, it will be trivially easy to suppress them: just destroy the semiconductor fabs, treat them the same way we treat ultra-centrifuges for enriching Uranium. Cut off the dangerous data centers, and forbid the reborn universities[1] from teaching linear algebra to the students. [1]: We will lose advanced education for the masses on the way, as it won't be economically viable nor necessary.
  • Simon_O_Rourke 2y ago
    > What will happen is that we will replace humans by AIs in more and more positions of influence and power, gradually. Our ChatGPTs of today will become board members and government advisors of tomorrow. Great, can't wait for even some small improvement over the idiots in charge right now.
    • moffkalast 2y ago
      I for one, also welcome our new Omnissiah overlords.
    • realce 2y ago
      It's time to put an end to this fashionable and literal anti-human attitude. There's no comparative advantage to AI replacing humans en-masse because of how "stupid" we are. This POV is advocating for incalculable suffering and death. You personally will not be in a better or more rational position after this transition, you'll simply be dead.
• mytailorisrich 2y ago
  This declaration is just hand-waving. Europe is hopeless so it does not make a difference. China can sign and ignore it so it does not make a difference. But it would not be wise for the USA to have their hands tied up so early. I suppose that the UK wants to go their usual "lighter touch regulation" than the EU route to attract investment. Plus they are obviously trying hard to make friends with the new US administration.
  • bostik 2y ago
    > * suppose that the UK wants to go their usual "lighter touch regulation" than the EU route to attract investment.* Not just that. A speaker in a conference I attended about a month ago mentioned that UK is actively drifting away from EU's stance, particularly on the aspect of AI safety in practice. The upcoming European AI act has "machine must not make material decisions" as its cornerstone. UK are hell-bent to get AI into government functions, to ostensibly make everything more efficient. As part of that drive, the UK is aiming to allow AI to make material decisions, without human review or recourse. In a country still in the throes of the Post Office / Horizon scandal, that really takes some nerve. Those in charge in this country know fully well that "AI safety" will be in violent conflict with the above.
    • tim333 2y ago
      I'm someone who generally sees no benefit from Brexit but I think being able to crack on with AI without EU regulation is a benefit.
      • phatfish 2y ago
        It's nothing to do with the EU, or a "regulation".
        • tim333 2y ago
          dunno https://x.com/paulg/status/1887249759557009903 https://x.com/paulg/status/1887249759557009903
• stackedinserter 2y ago
  The declaration itself, if anyone's interested: https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/02/11/statement-inclusive-and-sustainable-artificial-intelligence-people-and https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/02/11/statement... Signed by 60 countries out of "more than 100 participants", it just looks comically pathetic except "China" part: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vatican, European Union, African Union Commission.
• tmpz22 2y ago
  Why would any country align with US vision for AI policies after how we’ve treated allies over the last two weeks? Why would any country yield given the hard line negotiating stance the US is now taking? And the flip flopping and unclear messaging on our positions?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • anon291 2y ago
    People should be free to train AIs
• jcarrano 2y ago
  When you are the dominant world power, you just don't let others determine your strategy, as simple as that. Attempts at curbing AI will come from those who are losing the race. There's this interview where Edward Teller recalls how the USSR used a moratorium in nuclear testing to catch up with the US on the hydrogen bomb, and how he was the one telling the idealist scientists that that was going to happen.
  • lamp_book 2y ago
    I read in Supermen (book on Cray) that the test moratorium was a strategic advantage for the US since labs here could simulate nuclear weapons using HPC systems.
    • jcarrano 2y ago
      I was referring to the 1958 moratorium I'd be surprised if they could simulate weapons with the computers of the time. Here [1] is the clip from Teller's interview. In another clips he says that he believes it was inevitable that the Soviets would come up with an H-bomb on their own. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx1JTLrhbnI&list=PLVV0r6CmEsFw1phnddYWXtVkRW8eUVlqx&index=129 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx1JTLrhbnI&list=PLVV0r6CmEs...
      • lamp_book 2y ago
        Ok yeah this was a treaty that came much later - didn’t realize there were multiple agreements made over the years.
  • aucisson_masque 2y ago
    but how long is the us even going to be dominant ? it's well known that china has long caught up with the us, in almost every way, and is on the verge of surpassing it on the others. just look at deepseek, as efficient as openai for a fraction of the cost. Baidu, alibaba ai and so on. China's economy remains on track to surpass that of the United States within just five years, and yet they did sign that agreement. In fact most countries did. India too. it's not the case of the looser making new rule, it's the big boy discussing how they are going to handle the situation and the retarded ones thinking they are too good for that.
• jameslk 2y ago
  What benefit do these AI regulations provide to progressing AI/AGI development? Do they slow down progress? If so, how do the countries that intend to enforce these regulations plan to compete on AI/AGI with countries that don’t have these regulations?
• Imnimo 2y ago
  Am I right in understanding that this "declaration" is not a commitment to do anything specific? I don't really understand why it matters who does or does not sign it.
  • layer8 2y ago
    It’s an indication of the values shared, or in this case, not shared.
  • sva_ 2y ago
    Diplomatic theater, justification to get/keep more bureaucrats on the payroll
  • karaterobot 2y ago
    Yep, it's got all the force of a New Year's resolution. It does not appear to be much more specific than one, either. It's about a page and a half long—the list of countries is as long as than the declaration itself, and it basically says "we talked about how we won't do anything bad".
  • flanked-evergl 2y ago
    The children running the European countries (into the ground) like this kind of theatre because they can pretend to be doing something productive without having to think.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • amai 2y ago
    If it would be without commitment when why not sign it?
• rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  This declaration is not worth the paper it was written on. It doesn't require to be enforced and it's non binding so, it's like a kid's Christmas shopping list. The US and the UK were right to reject it.
• hintymad 2y ago
  Why would we trust Europe in the first place, given that they are so full of regulations and they love to suffocate innovation by introducing ever more regulations? I thought most people wanted to deregulate anyway.
• tnt128 2y ago
  An AI arms race will be how we make sky net a reality. If an enemy state gives AI autonomous control and gains massive combat effectiveness, it puts the pressure to other countries to do the same. No one wants sky net. But if we continue the current path, painting the world as we vs them. I m fearful sky net will be what we get
  • bluescrn 2y ago
    If a rogue AI could take direct control of weapons systems, then so could a human hacker - and we've got bigger problems than just 'AI safety'.
    • llm_trw 2y ago
      Twitch plays thermonuclear war.
    • Mystery-Machine 2y ago
      The difference is that we're not giving hackers direct access to weapons systems, while on the other hand, militaries are actively trying to use AI to control weapons directly.
• seydor 2y ago
  Europe just loves signing declarations and concerned letters. It would make no difference if they signed it.
  • swyx 2y ago
    leading in ai safety theater is actually worse than leading in ai because the leadership of ai safety is actually just in leading in ai period
    • llm_trw 2y ago
      Leading in AI safety is leading in AI lobotomization.
  • flanked-evergl 2y ago
    European leaders are overgrown children. It's kind of pathetic.
• anon291 2y ago
  The world is the world. Today is today. Tomorrow is tomorrow. You cannot face the world with how you want it to be, but only as it is. What we know today is that a relatively straightforward series of matrix multiplications leads to what is perceived to be intelligence. This is simply true no matter how many declarations one signs. Given that this is the case, there is nothing left to be done unless we want to go full Butlerian Jihad
  • llm_trw 2y ago
    I resent that. There are a few non-linear function operations in between the matrix multiplications.
• FloorEgg 2y ago
  What exactly is the letter declaring? There are so many interpretations of "AI safety" with most of them not actually having anything to do with maximizing distribution of societal and ecosystem prosperity or minimizing the likelihood of destruction or suffering. In fact some concepts of AI safety I have seen are double speak for rules that are more likely to lead to AI imposed tyranny. Where is the nuanced discussion of what we want and don't want AI to do as a society? These details matter, and working through them collectively is progress, in stark contrast to getting dragged into identity politics arguments. - I want AI to increase my freedom to do more and spend more time doing things I find meaningful and rewarding. - I want AI to help us repair damage we have done to ecosystems and reverse species diversity collapse. - I want AI to allow me to consume more in a completely sustainable way for me and the environment. - I want AI that is an excellent and honest curator of truth, both in terms of accurate descriptions of the past and nuanced explanations of how reality works. - I want AI that elegantly supports a diversity of values, so I can live how I want and others can live how they want. - I don't want AI that forcefully and arbitrarily limits my freedoms - I don't want AI that forcefully imposes other people's values on me (or imposes my values on others) - I don't want AI war that destroys our civilization and creates chaos - I don't want AI that causes unnecessary suffering - I don't want other people to use AI to tyrannize me or anyone else. How about instead of being so broadly generic about "AI safety" declarations we get specific, and then ask people to make specific commitments in kind. Then it would be a lot more meaningful when they refuse, or when they oblige and then break them.
• FpUser 2y ago
  I watched JD Vance's speech. He had made few very reasonable points to refuse joining the alliance. Still his speech left me with some sour taste. I interpret it as - "we are fuckin America and we do as we please. It is our sacred right to own the world. The rest are to submit or be punished one or the other way".
• PeterCorless 2y ago
  "Why do we want better artificial intelligence when we have all this raw human stupidity as an abundant renewable resource we haven't yet harnessed?"
• casebash 2y ago
  I'll copy my LinkedIn comment: "Well done to the UK for not signing the fully compromised Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for the People and the Planet. Australia shouldn't have signed this statement either given how France intentionally derailed attempts to build a global consensus on how we can develop AI safely. For those who lack context, the UK organised the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023 to allow countries to discuss how advanced AI technologies can be discussed safely. There was a mini-conference in Korea, France was given the opportunity to organise the next big conference, a trust they immediately betrayed by changing the event to be about promoting investment in their AI industry. They renamed the summit to the AI Action Summit and relegated safety from the sole focus to being just one of five focus areas, but not even one of five equally important focus areas, but one that seems to have been purposefully minimized even further. Within the conference statement safety was reduced to a single paragraph that undermines safety if anything: “Harnessing the benefits of AI technologies to support our economies and societies depends on advancing Trust and Safety. We commend the role of the Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit and Seoul Summits that have been essential in progressing international cooperation on AI safety and we note the voluntary commitments launched there. We will keep addressing the risks of AI to information integrity and continue the work on AI transparency.” Let’s break it down: • First, safety is being framed as “trust and safety”. These are not the same things. The word trust appearing first is not as innocent as it appears: trust is the primary goal and safety is secondary to this. This is a very commercial perspective, if people trust your product you can trick them into buying it, even if it isn't actually safe. • Second, trust and safety are not framed as values important in and of themselves, but as subordinate to realising the benefits of these technologies, primarily the "economic benefits". While the development of advanced AI technologies could theoretically create a social surplus that could be taxed and distributed, it's naive to assume that this will be automatic, particularly when the policy mechanisms are this compromised. • Finally, the statement doesn’t commit to continuing to address these risks, but only narrowly to “addressing the risks of AI to information integrity” and “continue the work on AI transparency”. In other words, they’re purposefully downplaying any more significant potential risks, likely because discussing more serious risks would get in the way of convincing companies to invest in France. Unfortunately, France has sold out humanity for short-term commercial benefit and we may all pay the price."
• m3kw9 2y ago
  I count 10 red tape just from this sentence “ ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all.”
• oceanplexian 2y ago
  I missed the boat on the 80s but as a “hacker” who made it through the 90s and 00s there’s something deeply sad and disturbing about how the conversation around AI is trending. Imaging telling hackers from the past that people on a website called “hacker news” would be arguing about how important it is that the government criminalize running code on your own computer. It’s so astoundingly, ethically, philosophically opposed to everything that inspired me to get into computers in the first place. I only have to wonder if people really believe this, or it’s a sophisticated narrative that’s convenient to certain corporations and politicians.
  • lolinder 2y ago
    Who is saying this? Do you have specific comments in mind that you're referring to? I can't find anything anywhere near the top that says anything like this.
  • knodi 2y ago
    I think you're missing the point. People are saying that government should make sure AI is not weaponized against the people of the world. But lets face it, US and UK governments will likely be the first to weaponized against the people. As DeepSeek is shown us progress is hard to hinder unless you go to war and kill the people....
  • bmc7505 2y ago
    Called it three years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30142353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30142353
  • entropi 2y ago
    I would say the debate currently going on is less about "running code on your own machine" and more about "making sure the thing your are replacing at least a portion of your labor force with is at least somewhat dependable and those who benefit from the replacement are still responsible".
    • TomK32 2y ago
      I think management is putting too much hope into this, any negative outcome from replacing a human with AI might result in liabilities surpassing the savings. Air Canada's chatbot was decided just a year ago and I'm sure the hallucinating AI chatbot, from development to legal fees, cost the airline more money than they saved in their call-center.
• dhdjruf 2y ago
  [dead]
• merillecuz56 2y ago
  [dead]
• Nevermark 2y ago
  Could anyone count how many times politicians have enacted laws or regulations in areas they completely lacked any understanding? And no time to get informed. Fortunately those days are over. Any politician dealing with a technical issue over their head can turn to an LLM and ask for comment. "Is signing this poorly thought out, difficult to interpret, laundry list of vague regulations, that could limit LLM progress, really a good idea? Break this down for me like I am 5, please." (Even though the start appeared trivial, happenstance, even benign, the age where AI's rapidly usurped there own governance had begun. The only thing that could have made it happen faster, or more destructively, were those poorly thought out international agreements the world was lucky to dodge.)
• openrisk 2y ago
  Hard to know how significant this is because its impossible to know what the political class (and many others) mean by "AI" (and thus its potential risks). This is not new, similar charades a few years ago around "blockchain" etc. But ignoring the signaling going on on various sides would be a mistake. "AI" is for all practical purposes a synonym for algorithmic decision making, with potential direct implication on peoples lifes. Without accountability, transparency, recourse etc the unchecked expansion of "AI" in various use cases represents a significant regression for historically established rights. In this respect the direction of travel is clear: The US is dismantling the CFPB, even more deregulation (if that is at all possible) is coming, big tech will be trusted to continue "self-regulating" etc. The interesting part is the UK stance. Somewhere in between the US and the EU in terms of citizen / consumer protections, but despite brexit probably closer to the latter, this siding with dog-eats-dog deregulation might signal an anxiety not to be left behind.
• honestSysAdmin 2y ago
  [dead]
• chvid 2y ago
  https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/statement-on-inclusive-and-sustainable-artificial-intelligence-for-people-and-the-planet https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/statemen...
• aiauthoritydev 2y ago
  AI safety is a BS thing. Glad Americans are leading the way.
• sagarpatil 2y ago
  The fundamental issue with these AI safety declarations is that they completely ignore game theory. The technology has already proliferated (see: DeepSeek, Qwen) and trying to control it through international agreements is like trying to control cryptography in the 90s. I've spent enough time building with these models to see their transformative potential. The productivity gains aren't marginal - they're exponential. And this is just with current-gen models. China's approach is particularly telling. While they lack the massive compute infrastructure of US tech giants, their research output is impressive. Their models may be smaller, but they're remarkably efficient. Look at DeepSeek's performance-to-parameter ratio. The upside potential is simply too large to ignore. We're seeing breakthroughs in protein folding that would take traditional methods decades. Education is being personalized at scale. The translation capabilities alone are revolutionary. The reality is that AI development will continue regardless of these declarations. The optimal strategy isn't to slow down - it's to maintain the lead while developing safety measures in parallel. Everything else is just security theater. (And yes, I've read the usual arguments about x-risk. The bottleneck isn't safety frameworks - it's compute and data quality.)
• flanked-evergl 2y ago
  Why have all other countries elected children instead of adults?
• joshdavham 2y ago
  I'm afraid of a future where we who live in the anglosphere end up with the AI equivalent of cookie banners and GDPR due to EU AI regulations.
  • whiplash451 2y ago
    GDPR has made a hell of eurosphere as well, if that can make you feel better.
    • arkh 2y ago
      > GDPR has made a hell of eurosphere as well Oh noes, I can't slurp all my user data and sell / give it to whoever. How will I make money if I can't exploit people's data?
      • whiplash451 2y ago
        There was a way to achieve GDPR's goals without covering the non-walled-gardens with barbed wire banners.
        • arkh 2y ago
          > barbed wire banners GDPR does not tell people to put banners on their website. People chose to not learn about GDPR and do "like everyone else".
          • whiplash451 2y ago
            Regulators are not just responsible for the laws they put in place. They are also responsible for the way the majority responds to them. If the majority fails to implement, it's a failure of the regulator, not a failure of the regulated.
• nbzso 2y ago
  So hackernews new kids will be happy with the corporate overtaking of America? Regulation? What the heck is this. The future is only bright and colourful. Is there an AI specialist here to explain to me why LLM's cannot code in Cobol? What AI is this?
• zombot 2y ago
  Can't have US parochialism restrained by international considerations. Can't put friction on printing money and avoiding accountability no matter the cost to others. > warning countries not to sign AI deals with “authoritarian regimes” Well, that now also rules out the US.
• tw1984 2y ago
  for those interested, below is the transcript of JD Vance's remark on the summit. https://gist.github.com/lmmx/b373b9819318d014adfdc32182ab17ff https://gist.github.com/lmmx/b373b9819318d014adfdc32182ab17f...
• lupusreal 2y ago
  These kind of "don't be evil" declarations are typically meaningless gestures by which non-players who weren't going to be participating anyway can posture as morally superior, while having no meaningful impact on the course of things. See also, the Ottawa Treaty; non-signatories include the US, China, Russia, Pakistan and India, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Cuba, North and South Korea... In other words all the countries from which landmine use is expected in the first place. And when push comes to shove, signatories like Ukraine will use landmines anyway because national defense is worth more than feeling morally superior for adhering to a piece of paper.
• gorgoiler 2y ago
  Regulating technology stands zero chance of succeeding. Technology and knowledge will always tend to freedom and the tech itself is meaningless without actions. It’s the actions and their consequences on people that we should care about. What’s much more important is strengthening rights that could be weakened by large scale data analysis of a population. The right to a private life, and having minimal data collected — and potential then stolen — about your life. The right of the state to investigate you for committing a crime using models and statistics only if a judge issues them a warrant to do so. The right in a free market economy to transparent and level pricing instead of being gouged because an AI thinks people with physical characteristics similar to mine have lots of money. Banning models that can create illegal images feels like legislators not aiming nearly high enough or smart enough: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d90qe4nylo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d90qe4nylo
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• junto 2y ago
  > “ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all.” That was never going to fly with the current U.S. administration. Not only is the word inclusive in there but ethical and trustworthy as well. Joking aside, I genuinely don’t understand the “job creation” claims of JD Vance in his dinner speech in Paris. Long-term I just can’t imagine what a United States will look like when 75% of the population are both superfluous and a burden to society. If this happens fast, society will crumble. Sheep are best kept busy grazing.
  • ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    I mean it feels like a joke, but also their “policy ideas” do basically boil down to targeting anything with the wrong words in them. I read somewhere they’re creating havoc right now because of a critical intelligence function called “privilege escalation” related to raising security clearance of personnel that’s been mired in stupid culture war controversy because it has the word privilege in it.
  • Spooky23 2y ago
    The audience is JD’s masters and whomever we are menacing today. The voters are locked in idiots, and don’t have agency at the moment. The bet from Musk, Theil, etc is that AI is as powerful and strategic as nuclear weapons were in 1947 - that’s what The Musk administration diplomacy seems to be like.
• ionwake 2y ago
  On the subject of safety - where is safe? A bunker? An island ? Nowhere? Will AI lead to a Dark Forest scenario on Earth between humans and AI?
  • TomK32 2y ago
    Here's the declaration[1]. No bunkers or islands mentioned. Safety is mentioned in a context with trust-worthiness, ethics, security, ... [1] https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/11/02-11-AI-Action-Summit-Declaration.pdf https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/11/02-11-...
• hartator 2y ago
  Was there one time in history where regulations successfully preceded the actual technology?
• agentultra 2y ago
  > the energy needed to power supercomputers The methane power plants needed. Of which the Trump administration is excited to create more of. More plants means they need to do more drilling and fracking. Great for the pocket books of their donors. Methane totally doesn't leak! It's monitored by the companies doing the drilling and fracking and is totally easy to detect in the environment if it does escape some how. /s And for what? Rich capital holders to get access to technology that furthers their wealth and allows them to lay off more labourers? The promise that some of its uses may potentially save the lives of rich people? Nothing this administration is doing is terribly surprising. They're being very open about it. Good luck getting chip foundries set up, importing rare earth metals and sand, dealing with the ponds, and handling all the methane needed to power all of the DCs we're going to build. Have fun living next to one. I don't understand how their isolationist, nationalist stance is supposed to support this technology and keep them, "the leader in AI." Sounds ridiculous. Global supply chains and stable free-trade agreements got us here.
• lofaszvanitt 2y ago
  Colonel Willis Corto incoming to the us.
• iceman2654 2y ago
  For those wondering, here is the meat of the declaration: Promoting AI accessibility to reduce digital divides; Ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all Making innovation in AI thrive by enabling conditions for its development and avoiding market concentration driving industrial recovery and development Encouraging AI deployment that positively shapes the future of work and labour markets and delivers opportunity for sustainable growth Making AI sustainable for people and the planet Reinforcing international cooperation to promote coordination in international governance https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/statement-on-inclusive-and-sustainable-artificial-intelligence-for-people-and-the-planet https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2025/02/11/statemen...