4 ms·
Five men control AI. Who should control them?
- saltyoldman 7mo agoThe countries that they're in already do via the law. No one else should "control" someone.
- bigyabai 7mo agoThe law is only relevant insofar as it's enforced. In America, that's a tossup.
- SilentM68 7mo agoGood point. People do not think of a scenario where one billionaire might decide to take their wealth and resources and hunker down on a dictator-controlled country where extradition does not apply, that person could easily experiment and create an AI that may not necessarily see us as relevant to their existence. I probably won't be able to respond to this comment since some people on this forum have flagged my comments as inappropriate thus limiting the number of daily posts I can make :)
- rolph 7mo agono one should have to control some one, until they become a threat. when someone presents a threat, at large, they have limited entitlement to walk among society, or act without review.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> no one should have to control some one, until they become a threat The Helots were a threat to Spartans. Black Haitians to the French. Jews to the Reich. Threats feel like a reasonable reason to reduce another’s rights. But they turn out to be the most usual way of tricking oneself into becoming a monster.
- monknomo 7mo agoAre you comparing the ai ceos to helots? I am confused
- npfo-hn 7mo agoCongratulations! You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! You just equated the idea that there should be some democratic restrictions based on corporate activity with death camps that murdered millions! You win the "most HN post of the month" award. Never change, HN. Never change.
- npfo-hn 7mo ago"Jews to the Reich." Yes they did.
- operatingthetan 7mo ago>You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! They literally did not.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> You just compared regulating the behavior of a handful of billionaires to the holocaust! On the most surface level, sure. Regulating something and controlling someone are, to me, different motivations.
- gobdovan 7mo agoI am starting to believe a significant number of humans run a computation that goes something like this: "Can I control AI? Will I meet people that control AI personally? If no, why would I care if they're treated unfairly in the abstract? Most important thing for me is they don't affect my resources in any way. They're better off than most either way, if anything not willingly reducing their power shows greed and confirms they're threats."
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
- rgbrgb 7mo agoto be fair, that's exactly what's at issue. controlling AI implies controlling society as intelligence scales.
- Nasrudith 7mo agoThis is singulitarian fallacies all over again like 'being able to make something smarter than a human means infintely smart, because it can just keep on making one smarter' while ignoring the multifaceted nature of intelligence, the time and other costs involved in creation and the costs. It just gets handwaved away as superintelligence somehow enabling goddamned sorcery to ignore physical constraints. Except reality does not work that way. It reminds me of the 'Einstein's superintelligent cat' refutation to such fallacies. It went something like this: imagine Einstein has a superintelligenct cat. The room has only one door and it is locked. The cat is not capable of opening the lock due to lack of manual dexterity. The cat does not want to go into the carrier. Einstein is however an order of magnitude greater in mass. As much as the cat might want to escape Albert Einstein's grip he cannot. The superintelligent cat is going in the carrier. The point being that, no, controlling or creating AI does not in fact equate to controlling society no matter how smart it gets. Even if we were so incredibly stupid to wire it up to be able to actually control an entire munitions factory it still can't take over society, and it only takes one bombing run or called in artillery strike to end the situation. Yet in the real world we can trust private ownership of firearm factories, missile factories, and tank factories without a serious risk of a coup. Yet somehow AI is supposed to be what makes them a god-king? It strains credulity.
- pixl97 7mo ago>Yet in the real world we can trust private ownership of firearm factories, missile factories, and tank factories without a serious risk of a coup Because they are highly fucking regulated.... Start selling missiles to kids and watch yourself get put in a cage.
- stratos123 7mo agoThese arguments have been going on for more than a decade and have been silly the whole time. > It reminds me of the 'Einstein's superintelligent cat' refutation to such fallacies. One (of the many) problem(s) with this "refutation" is that in reality not only does nobody bother to lock the superintelligent cat in room and leave it no available actions, but you're lucky if they don't hook the cat up directly to the internet. It doesn't matter whether you could maybe control a superintelligence, if you were very careful and treating it very seriously, when nobody is even trying, much less being very careful.
- billfor 7mo agoClearly the Economist and their panel of experts.
- camillomiller 7mo agoSo basically the same 5 men, considering that the Economist is the mouthpiece of the capitalist global oligarchy
- gizmodo59 7mo ago“Insider is supported by ANTHROPIC“ get their money and act like independent? What a joke
- comrade1234 7mo agoNo Chinese? Guess they're no good at ai.
- saltyoldman 7mo agoThat wouldn't fit the narrative.
- stratos123 7mo agoChinese companies are lagging behind and always have. They are fast-followers but don't decide the frontier.
- linzhangrun 7mo ago[flagged]
- judahmeek 7mo agohttps://ai-2027.com https://ai-2027.com does a solid job of demonstrating the existential risk of the singularity. If it is actually approaching, we need leaders who will give potential black swan events the severe caution they are due. I sure hope the theoretical timeline is compressed because the singularity under Donald Trump likely means that we're all dead due to misalignment.
- lostmsu 7mo agoSingularity is something we might never see. The question is whether we crossed the event horizon.
- xnx 7mo agoDemis Hassabis is on their list? He reports to Sundar (who reports to Sergey Brin?)
- moralestapia 7mo agoAlso no mention of Huang? He's behind all of them in the supply chain.
- danny_codes 7mo agolol bit of a stretch there, seeing as there are dozens of companies training LLMs. As training software and infrastructure matures plenty more entrants will enter the market. It’s not like this is a particularly challenging research field, just very expensive at the moment.
- dangus 7mo agoWhich LLM should I be using for programming work that isn’t released by OpenAI, DeepSeek, or Claude? Which one outperforms this small handful of options within the AI oligopoly? This statement you’re making is like saying “there are dozens of Android phone OEMs” when in reality Apple is gobbling up 80% of the profits, Samsung/Google are consuming another 10%, and everyone outside of China has their app installs gated by Google Play or Apple App Store.
- xnx 7mo ago[dead]
- drewfax 7mo agoOne man controls entire country. Yet we call that freedom and democracy.
- gigatree 7mo agoAre you talking about the president? Because if so lol
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- stvltvs 7mo agoHaving one guy in charge of the entire executive branch was possibly the biggest blunder made by the framers of the US Constitution.
- nh23423fefe 7mo agoname checks out
- zzrrt 7mo agoOr Congress and the courts made the blunder of allowing the executives to accumulate so much power.
- stvltvs 7mo agoFair, but one is structural, the other is a series of bad choices that could be undone without upending the constitutional order.
- dj_rock 7mo ago"Insider is supported by Anthropic"