4 ms·

I think the alternative is just as chilling in some sense. You don't want to be stuck in a country that outlaws AI (especially from other countries) if that mea

I think the alternative is just as chilling in some sense. You don't want to be stuck in a country that outlaws AI (especially from other countries) if that means you will be uncompetitive in the new emerging world. The future is going to be hard, why would we choose to tie one hand behind our back? There is a difference between being careful and being fearful.

latexr 2y ago
> if that means you will be uncompetitive in the new emerging world. (…) There is a difference between being careful and being fearful. I’m so sick of that word. “You need to be competitive”, “you need to innovate”. Bullshit. You want to talk about fear? “Competitiveness” and “innovation” are the words the unscrupulous people at the top use to instil fear on everyone else and run rampant. They’re not being competitive or innovative, they’re sucking you dry of as much value as they can. We all need to take a breath. Stop and think for a moment. You can literally eat food which grows from the ground and make a shelter with a handful of planks and nails. Humanity survived and thrived before all this unfettered consumption, we don’t need to kill ourselves for more. https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > “Competitiveness” and “innovation” are the words the unscrupulous people at the top use to instil fear on everyone else and run rampant If a society is okay accepting a lower standard of living and sovereign subservience, then sure, competition doesn't matter. But if America and China have AI and nukes and Europe doesn't, one side gets to call the shots and the other has to listen.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > a lower standard of living We better start really defining what that means, because it has become quite clear that all this “progress” is not leading to better lives. We’re literally going to kill ourselves with climate change. > AI and nukes Those two things aren’t remotely comparable.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > it has become quite clear that all this “progress” is not leading to better lives How do you think the average person under 50 would poll on being teleported to the 1950s? No phones, no internet, jet travel is only for the elite, oh nuclear war and MAD are new cultural concepts, yippee, and fuck you if you're black because the civil rights acts are still a decade out. > two things aren’t remotely comparable I'm assuming no AGI, just massive economic efficiencies. In that sense, nuclear weapons give strategic autonomy through military coercion and the ability to grant a security umbrella, which fosters e.g. trade ties. In the same way, the wealth from an AI-boosted economy fosters similar trade ties (and creates similar costs for disengaging). America doesn't influence Europe by threatening to nuke it, but by threatening not to nuke its enemies.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > on being teleported to the 1950s? That’s not the argument. At all. I argued we should rethink our attitude of unfettered consumption so we don’t continue on an path which is provably leading to destruction and death, and your take is going back in time to nuclear war and overt racism. That is frankly insane. I’m not fetishising “the old days”, I’m saying this attitude of “more more more” does not automatically translate to “better”.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        You said "all this 'progress' is not leading to better lives." That implies lives were better or at least as good before "all this 'progress'." If you say Room A is not better than Room B, then you should be, at the very least, indifferent to swapping between them. If you're against it, then Room A is better than Room B. Our lives are better--civically, militarily and materially--than they were before. Complaining about unfettered consumerism by falsely claiming our lives are worse today than they were before doesn't support your argument. (It's further undercut by the falling material and energy intensity of GDP in the rich world. We're able to produce more value for less input resource-wise.)
        2y ago
- zoogeny 2y ago
  I live in a ruralish area. There is a lot of forested area and due to economic depression there are a lot of people living in the woods. Most live in tents but some actually cut down the trees and turn them into make-shift shacks. Using planks and nails like you suggest. They often drag propane burners into the woods which often leads to fires. Perhaps this is what you mean? In reality, most people will continue to live the modern life where there are doctors, accountants, veterinarians, mechanics. We'll continue to enjoy food distribution and grocery stores. We'll all hope that North America gets its act together and build high speed rail so we can travel comfortably for long distances. There was a time Canada was a big exporter of engineering technology. From mining to agriculture, satellites, and nuclear technology. I want Canada to be competitive in these ways, not making makeshift shacks out of planks and nails for junkies that have given up on life and live in the woods.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > They often drag propane burners into the woods which often leads to fires. Perhaps this is what you mean? I believe you very well know it’s not, and are transparently arguing in bad faith. > shacks (…) for junkies that have given up on life The insults you’ve chosen are quite telling. Not everyone living in a way you disapprove of is an automatic junky.
    - zoogeny 2y ago
      You stated one ludicrous extreme (food comes out of the ground! shelter is planks and nails!) and I stated another ludicrous extreme. You can make my position look simplistic and I can make your position look simplistic. You can't then cry foul. You are also assuming, in bad faith, an "all" where I did not place one. It is an undeniable fact with evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, including police reports and documented studies by the district, that the makeshift shacks in the rural woods near my house are made by drug addicts that are eschewing the readily available social housing for the specific reason that they can't go to that housing due to its explicit restrictions on drug use.
      - latexr 2y ago
- Henchman21 2y ago
  This may resonate with you: https://crimethinc.com/2018/09/03/the-mythology-of-work-eight-myths-that-keep-your-eyes-on-the-clock-and-your-nose-to-the-grindstone https://crimethinc.com/2018/09/03/the-mythology-of-work-eigh...
- yibg 2y ago
  When does that competitiveness and innovation stop though? If they stopped 100 years ago where would we be today as a species and is that better or worse than today? How about 1000 years ago? We face issues (like we always have), but I'd argue quite strongly that the competitiveness in our history and drive to invent and innovate has led to where we are today and it's a good thing.
TFYS 2y ago
It's because of competition that we are in this situation. When the economic system and relationships between countries are based on competition, it's nearly impossible to avoid these races to the bottom. We need more systems based on cooperation instead of competition.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > We need more systems based on cooperation instead of competition. That requires dissolving the anarchy of the international system. Which requires an enforcer.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Isn't this the opposite? If you want competition then you need something like the WTO as a mechanism to prevent countries from putting up trade barriers etc. If some countries want to collaborate on some CERN project they just... do that.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If you want competition then you need something like the WTO as a mechanism to prevent countries from putting up trade barriers etc. That's an enforcer. Unfortunately, nobody follows through with its sanctions, so it's devolved into a glorified opinion-providing body. > If some countries want to collaborate on some CERN project they just... do that CERN is about doing thing, not not doing things. You can't CERN your way to nuclear non-proliferation.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > You can't CERN your way to nuclear non-proliferation. Non-proliferation is, the US has nuclear weapons and doesn't want Iran to have them, so is going to apply some kind of bribe or threat. It's not cooperative. The better example here is climate change. Everyone has a direct individual benefit from burning carbon but it's to our collective detriment, so how do you get anyone to stop, especially the countries with large oil and coal reserves? In theory you could punish countries that don't stop burning carbon, but that appears to be hard and in practice what's doing the most good is making solar cheaper than burning coal and making electric cars people actually want, politics of infamous electric car man notwithstanding. So what does that look like for making AI "safe, secure and trustworthy"? Maybe something like publishing state of the art models for free with full documentation of how they were created, so that people aren't sending their sensitive data to questionable third parties who do who knows what with it or using models with secret biases.
tmnvix 2y ago
> You don't want to be stuck in a country that outlaws AI Just as you don't want to be stuck in the only town that outlaws murder... I am not a religious person, but I can see the value in promoting shared taboos. The question is, how do we do this in the modern world? We had some success with nuclear weapons. I don't think it's any coincidence that contemporary leaders (and possibly populations) seem to have forgotten how bloody dangerous they are and how utterly stupid it is to engage in brinkmanship with so much on the line.
- zoogeny 2y ago
  This is a good point, and it is the reason why communists argued that the only way communism could work is if it happened globally simultaneously. You don't want to be the only non-capitalist country in a world of capitalists. Of course, when the world-wide revolution didn't happen they were forced to change their tune and adjust. As for nuclear weapons, I mean it does kind of suck in today's age to be a country without nuclear weapons, right? Like, certain well known countries would really like to have them so they wouldn't feel bullied by the ones that have them. So, I actually think that example works against you. And we very well may end up in a similar circumstance where a few countries get super powerful AGIs and then use their advantage to prevent any other country from getting it as well. Therefore my point stands: I don't want to be in one of the countries that doesn't get to be in that exclusive club.
  - achierius 2y ago
    Frankly, in the event of nuclear war, I'd rather be in a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons than in one that does. Australia and New Zealand will probably come out of such a scenario ~fine; India and Pakistan will not, the US and Russia will not, neither China, nor France, nor the UK will either. For Nigeria (e.g.) to build nuclear weapons today would certainly give them some level of international sway (though it could also result in the destruction of their economy thanks to international sanctions), but it would also put them on the map where they had not been before.
achierius 2y ago
"one hand behind our back"? We're talking about who's going to be the first to build the thing that might kill all of humanity. Or, even in many of the happier scenarios, the thing which will impoverish and immiserate the vast majority of the population, rendering them permanently subject to the whims of the capital-owning few. Why is it "our" back? The people who will own these machines do not consider you one of them. The people leading the countries that will use these machines to kill each other's civilians do not consider you one of them. You have far more in common with a Chinese worker than you do with Sam Altman or Jeff Bezos. And frankly? I think choosing a (say, conservatively, just going off of the estimates Altman and Amodei have made in the past) 20% chance of killing everyone as our first resort is just morally unacceptable. If the US made an effort to halt research and China still kept at it, sure, I won't complain I suppose, but we haven't, and pretending that China is the problem when it's our labs pushing the edge on capabilities -- it's just comedic.

latexr 2y ago

> if that means you will be uncompetitive in the new emerging world. (…) There is a difference between being careful and being fearful. I’m so sick of that word. “You need to be competitive”, “you need to innovate”. Bullshit. You want to talk about fear? “Competitiveness” and “innovation” are the words the unscrupulous people at the top use to instil fear on everyone else and run rampant. They’re not being competitive or innovative, they’re sucking you dry of as much value as they can. We all need to take a breath. Stop and think for a moment. You can literally eat food which grows from the ground and make a shelter with a handful of planks and nails. Humanity survived and thrived before all this unfettered consumption, we don’t need to kill ourselves for more. https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> “Competitiveness” and “innovation” are the words the unscrupulous people at the top use to instil fear on everyone else and run rampant If a society is okay accepting a lower standard of living and sovereign subservience, then sure, competition doesn't matter. But if America and China have AI and nukes and Europe doesn't, one side gets to call the shots and the other has to listen.
- latexr 2y ago
  > a lower standard of living We better start really defining what that means, because it has become quite clear that all this “progress” is not leading to better lives. We’re literally going to kill ourselves with climate change. > AI and nukes Those two things aren’t remotely comparable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it has become quite clear that all this “progress” is not leading to better lives How do you think the average person under 50 would poll on being teleported to the 1950s? No phones, no internet, jet travel is only for the elite, oh nuclear war and MAD are new cultural concepts, yippee, and fuck you if you're black because the civil rights acts are still a decade out. > two things aren’t remotely comparable I'm assuming no AGI, just massive economic efficiencies. In that sense, nuclear weapons give strategic autonomy through military coercion and the ability to grant a security umbrella, which fosters e.g. trade ties. In the same way, the wealth from an AI-boosted economy fosters similar trade ties (and creates similar costs for disengaging). America doesn't influence Europe by threatening to nuke it, but by threatening not to nuke its enemies.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > on being teleported to the 1950s? That’s not the argument. At all. I argued we should rethink our attitude of unfettered consumption so we don’t continue on an path which is provably leading to destruction and death, and your take is going back in time to nuclear war and overt racism. That is frankly insane. I’m not fetishising “the old days”, I’m saying this attitude of “more more more” does not automatically translate to “better”.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        You said "all this 'progress' is not leading to better lives." That implies lives were better or at least as good before "all this 'progress'." If you say Room A is not better than Room B, then you should be, at the very least, indifferent to swapping between them. If you're against it, then Room A is better than Room B. Our lives are better--civically, militarily and materially--than they were before. Complaining about unfettered consumerism by falsely claiming our lives are worse today than they were before doesn't support your argument. (It's further undercut by the falling material and energy intensity of GDP in the rich world. We're able to produce more value for less input resource-wise.)
        2y ago
zoogeny 2y ago
I live in a ruralish area. There is a lot of forested area and due to economic depression there are a lot of people living in the woods. Most live in tents but some actually cut down the trees and turn them into make-shift shacks. Using planks and nails like you suggest. They often drag propane burners into the woods which often leads to fires. Perhaps this is what you mean? In reality, most people will continue to live the modern life where there are doctors, accountants, veterinarians, mechanics. We'll continue to enjoy food distribution and grocery stores. We'll all hope that North America gets its act together and build high speed rail so we can travel comfortably for long distances. There was a time Canada was a big exporter of engineering technology. From mining to agriculture, satellites, and nuclear technology. I want Canada to be competitive in these ways, not making makeshift shacks out of planks and nails for junkies that have given up on life and live in the woods.
- latexr 2y ago
  > They often drag propane burners into the woods which often leads to fires. Perhaps this is what you mean? I believe you very well know it’s not, and are transparently arguing in bad faith. > shacks (…) for junkies that have given up on life The insults you’ve chosen are quite telling. Not everyone living in a way you disapprove of is an automatic junky.
  - zoogeny 2y ago
    You stated one ludicrous extreme (food comes out of the ground! shelter is planks and nails!) and I stated another ludicrous extreme. You can make my position look simplistic and I can make your position look simplistic. You can't then cry foul. You are also assuming, in bad faith, an "all" where I did not place one. It is an undeniable fact with evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, including police reports and documented studies by the district, that the makeshift shacks in the rural woods near my house are made by drug addicts that are eschewing the readily available social housing for the specific reason that they can't go to that housing due to its explicit restrictions on drug use.
    - latexr 2y ago
Henchman21 2y ago
This may resonate with you: https://crimethinc.com/2018/09/03/the-mythology-of-work-eight-myths-that-keep-your-eyes-on-the-clock-and-your-nose-to-the-grindstone https://crimethinc.com/2018/09/03/the-mythology-of-work-eigh...
yibg 2y ago
When does that competitiveness and innovation stop though? If they stopped 100 years ago where would we be today as a species and is that better or worse than today? How about 1000 years ago? We face issues (like we always have), but I'd argue quite strongly that the competitiveness in our history and drive to invent and innovate has led to where we are today and it's a good thing.

TFYS 2y ago

It's because of competition that we are in this situation. When the economic system and relationships between countries are based on competition, it's nearly impossible to avoid these races to the bottom. We need more systems based on cooperation instead of competition.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> We need more systems based on cooperation instead of competition. That requires dissolving the anarchy of the international system. Which requires an enforcer.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Isn't this the opposite? If you want competition then you need something like the WTO as a mechanism to prevent countries from putting up trade barriers etc. If some countries want to collaborate on some CERN project they just... do that.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If you want competition then you need something like the WTO as a mechanism to prevent countries from putting up trade barriers etc. That's an enforcer. Unfortunately, nobody follows through with its sanctions, so it's devolved into a glorified opinion-providing body. > If some countries want to collaborate on some CERN project they just... do that CERN is about doing thing, not not doing things. You can't CERN your way to nuclear non-proliferation.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > You can't CERN your way to nuclear non-proliferation. Non-proliferation is, the US has nuclear weapons and doesn't want Iran to have them, so is going to apply some kind of bribe or threat. It's not cooperative. The better example here is climate change. Everyone has a direct individual benefit from burning carbon but it's to our collective detriment, so how do you get anyone to stop, especially the countries with large oil and coal reserves? In theory you could punish countries that don't stop burning carbon, but that appears to be hard and in practice what's doing the most good is making solar cheaper than burning coal and making electric cars people actually want, politics of infamous electric car man notwithstanding. So what does that look like for making AI "safe, secure and trustworthy"? Maybe something like publishing state of the art models for free with full documentation of how they were created, so that people aren't sending their sensitive data to questionable third parties who do who knows what with it or using models with secret biases.

tmnvix 2y ago

> You don't want to be stuck in a country that outlaws AI Just as you don't want to be stuck in the only town that outlaws murder... I am not a religious person, but I can see the value in promoting shared taboos. The question is, how do we do this in the modern world? We had some success with nuclear weapons. I don't think it's any coincidence that contemporary leaders (and possibly populations) seem to have forgotten how bloody dangerous they are and how utterly stupid it is to engage in brinkmanship with so much on the line.

zoogeny 2y ago
This is a good point, and it is the reason why communists argued that the only way communism could work is if it happened globally simultaneously. You don't want to be the only non-capitalist country in a world of capitalists. Of course, when the world-wide revolution didn't happen they were forced to change their tune and adjust. As for nuclear weapons, I mean it does kind of suck in today's age to be a country without nuclear weapons, right? Like, certain well known countries would really like to have them so they wouldn't feel bullied by the ones that have them. So, I actually think that example works against you. And we very well may end up in a similar circumstance where a few countries get super powerful AGIs and then use their advantage to prevent any other country from getting it as well. Therefore my point stands: I don't want to be in one of the countries that doesn't get to be in that exclusive club.
- achierius 2y ago
  Frankly, in the event of nuclear war, I'd rather be in a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons than in one that does. Australia and New Zealand will probably come out of such a scenario ~fine; India and Pakistan will not, the US and Russia will not, neither China, nor France, nor the UK will either. For Nigeria (e.g.) to build nuclear weapons today would certainly give them some level of international sway (though it could also result in the destruction of their economy thanks to international sanctions), but it would also put them on the map where they had not been before.

achierius 2y ago

"one hand behind our back"? We're talking about who's going to be the first to build the thing that might kill all of humanity. Or, even in many of the happier scenarios, the thing which will impoverish and immiserate the vast majority of the population, rendering them permanently subject to the whims of the capital-owning few. Why is it "our" back? The people who will own these machines do not consider you one of them. The people leading the countries that will use these machines to kill each other's civilians do not consider you one of them. You have far more in common with a Chinese worker than you do with Sam Altman or Jeff Bezos. And frankly? I think choosing a (say, conservatively, just going off of the estimates Altman and Amodei have made in the past) 20% chance of killing everyone as our first resort is just morally unacceptable. If the US made an effort to halt research and China still kept at it, sure, I won't complain I suppose, but we haven't, and pretending that China is the problem when it's our labs pushing the edge on capabilities -- it's just comedic.