4 ms·

> It's possible to stop developing things If the US were willing to compromise some of it's core values, then we could probably stop AI development domesticall

> It's possible to stop developing things If the US were willing to compromise some of it's core values, then we could probably stop AI development domestically. But what about the rest of the world? If China or India want to reap the benefits of enhanced AI capability, how could we stop them? We can hit them with sanctions and other severe measures, but that hasn't stopped Russia in Ukraine -- plus the prospect of world-leading AI capability has a lot more economic value than what Ukraine can offer. So if we can't stop the world from developing these things, why hamstring ourselves and let our competitors have all of the benefits?

hcurtiss 2y ago
Exactly. Including military benefits. The US would not be a nation for long.
hollerith 2y ago
>the prospect of world-leading AI capability has a lot more economic value than what Ukraine can offer. The mere fact that you imagine that Moscow's motivation in invading Ukraine is economic is a sign that you're missing the main reasons Moscow or Beijing would want to ban AI: (1) unlike in the West and especially unlike the US, it is routine and normal for the government in those countries to ban things or discourage their use, especially new things that might cause large societal changes and (2) what Moscow and Beijing want most is not economic prosperity, but rather to prevent another one of those invasions or revolutions that kills millions of people and to prevent the country's ruling coalition from losing power.
- philomath_mn 2y ago
  But this all comes back to the self-interest and game theory discussion. Let's suppose that, like you, both Moscow and Beijing do not want AGI to exist. What could they do about it? Why should they trust that the rest of the world will also pause their AI development? This whole discussion is basically a variation on the prisoner's dilemma. Either you cooperate and AI risks are mitigated, or you do not cooperate and try to take the best outcome for yourself. I think we can expect the latter. Not because it is the right thing or because it is the optimal decision for humanity, but because each individual will deem it their best choice, even after accounting for P(doom).
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >Let's suppose that, like you, both Moscow and Beijing do not want AGI to exist. What could they do about it? Why should they trust that the rest of the world will also pause their AI development? That is why the US and Europe should stop AI in their territories first especially as the US and Britain have been the main drivers of AI "progress" up to now.

hcurtiss 2y ago

Exactly. Including military benefits. The US would not be a nation for long.

hollerith 2y ago

>the prospect of world-leading AI capability has a lot more economic value than what Ukraine can offer. The mere fact that you imagine that Moscow's motivation in invading Ukraine is economic is a sign that you're missing the main reasons Moscow or Beijing would want to ban AI: (1) unlike in the West and especially unlike the US, it is routine and normal for the government in those countries to ban things or discourage their use, especially new things that might cause large societal changes and (2) what Moscow and Beijing want most is not economic prosperity, but rather to prevent another one of those invasions or revolutions that kills millions of people and to prevent the country's ruling coalition from losing power.

philomath_mn 2y ago
But this all comes back to the self-interest and game theory discussion. Let's suppose that, like you, both Moscow and Beijing do not want AGI to exist. What could they do about it? Why should they trust that the rest of the world will also pause their AI development? This whole discussion is basically a variation on the prisoner's dilemma. Either you cooperate and AI risks are mitigated, or you do not cooperate and try to take the best outcome for yourself. I think we can expect the latter. Not because it is the right thing or because it is the optimal decision for humanity, but because each individual will deem it their best choice, even after accounting for P(doom).
- hollerith 2y ago
  >Let's suppose that, like you, both Moscow and Beijing do not want AGI to exist. What could they do about it? Why should they trust that the rest of the world will also pause their AI development? That is why the US and Europe should stop AI in their territories first especially as the US and Britain have been the main drivers of AI "progress" up to now.