3 ms·

Unless China handicaps the their progress as well (which they won’t, see made in China 2025), all you’re doing is handing the future to deepseek et al.

nicce 1y ago
This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons. The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.
- lukas099 1y ago
  Yes, it was the same with nukes, each side had to build them because the other side was building them.
- bpodgursky 1y ago
  Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.
  - nicce 1y ago
    That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands". https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/
esafak 1y ago
What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.
- alasano 1y ago
  We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk. I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example. The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
  - esafak 1y ago
    As with nuclear weapons, there is non-negligible probability of wiping out the human race. The companies developing AI have not solved the alignment problem, and OpenAI even dismantled what programs it had on it. They are not going to invest in it unless forced to. We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. We do know that. By literally looking at China. > The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude. AGI aligned with whom?
- BeetleB 1y ago
  > If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
  - esafak 1y ago
    A European dystopia won't be AI borne, so this is a false dilemma.
    - BeetleB 1y ago
      What I meant is: Europe can choose to regulate as they do, and end up living in a Chinese dystopia because the Chinese will drastically benefit from non-regulated AI, or they can create their own AI dystopia. A non-AI dystopia is the least likely scenario.
saubeidl 1y ago
[dead]
immibis 1y ago
Compare the other American "innovations" that Europe mostly rejects.

nicce 1y ago

This thought process it not different than it was with nuclear weapons. The primary difference is the observability - with satellites we had some confidence that other nations respected treaties, or that they had enough reaction time for mutual destruction, but with this AI development we lack all that.

lukas099 1y ago
Yes, it was the same with nukes, each side had to build them because the other side was building them.
bpodgursky 1y ago
Only countries with nuclear weapons had an actual seat at the table when the world banned new nuclear weapon programs.
- nicce 1y ago
  That is why we see the current AI competition and some attempts from companies to regulate it so that "it is safe only in their hands". https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/ https://time.com/6288245/openai-eu-lobbying-ai-act/

esafak 1y ago

What kind of a future is that? If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? We can selectively ban uses without banning the technology wholesale; e.g., nuclear power generation is permitted, while nuclear weapons are strictly controlled.

alasano 1y ago
We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. If it's winner takes all for the first company/nation to have AGI (presuming we can control it), then slowing down progress of any kind with regulation is a risk. I don't think there's a good enough analogy to be made, like your nuclear power/weapons example. The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude.
- esafak 1y ago
  As with nuclear weapons, there is non-negligible probability of wiping out the human race. The companies developing AI have not solved the alignment problem, and OpenAI even dismantled what programs it had on it. They are not going to invest in it unless forced to. We should not be racing ahead because China is, but investing energy in alignment research and international agreements.
- troupo 1y ago
  > We don't know whether pushing towards AGI is marching towards a dystopia. We do know that. By literally looking at China. > The hypothetical benefits of an aligned AGI outweigh those of any other technology by orders of magnitude. AGI aligned with whom?
BeetleB 1y ago
> If China marches towards a dystopia, why should Europe dutifully follow? I think the more relevant question is: Do you want to live in a Chinese dystopia, or a European one?
- esafak 1y ago
  A European dystopia won't be AI borne, so this is a false dilemma.
  - BeetleB 1y ago
    What I meant is: Europe can choose to regulate as they do, and end up living in a Chinese dystopia because the Chinese will drastically benefit from non-regulated AI, or they can create their own AI dystopia. A non-AI dystopia is the least likely scenario.

saubeidl 1y ago

[dead]

immibis 1y ago

Compare the other American "innovations" that Europe mostly rejects.