4 ms·

> 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 pers

by 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.

by tmnvix 2y ago

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.