5 ms·

Yudkowsky's solution of detecting and physically shutting down non complying datacenter, including bombing if the country doesn't cooperate, isn't too much out

Yudkowsky's solution of detecting and physically shutting down non complying datacenter, including bombing if the country doesn't cooperate, isn't too much out of the question. We would have done the same if it is about virus or nuclear weapons, and AI could become serious existential threat in the next 5 years.

gloryjulio 2mo ago
Do you think it's possible to bomb China's AI datacenters? They are already here, and they are progressing AI at their will. What will others do about it?
- YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
  It is possible for US to bomb anything. Just the retaliation could be huge. Would you had said the same thing if a country like was developing and testing deadly virus on live population. I think in 5 years, it is possible that the AI will become that topic(if we assume AI becomes good and start hacking and controlling everything).
  - mbgerring 2mo ago
    lol, is it, because last time I checked we’re currently losing a war badly, and we’re out of munitions
notahacker 2mo ago
More or less of an existential threat than a conflict between nuclear powers because one of them decided to launch a unilateral strike against a datacentre located outside one of their cities just in case it hosted a particularly dangerous chatbot?
- reducesuffering 2mo ago
  Trolley problem. What's worse than all of humanity dead from ASI? Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could."
  - notahacker 2mo ago
    most of humanity dead because some morons decided to try to kill everyone just in case the server farm evolved the inclination and the capacity to try to kill everyone... Trolley problem: on the left track is a class of schoolchildren. On the right track is a a computer which a Harry Potter fanfic author argues has magic powers and the marketing department of Apple kind of agrees. Do you let Eliezer persuade you to kill the kids?
    - reducesuffering 2mo ago
      no one dead because we're willing to use our means to enforce a restriction on a scenario that is likely on our trajectory to kill everyone. We also use serious threats to prevent nuclear proliferation that endangers everyone
      - notahacker 1mo ago
        Serious threats which have completely failed to persuade North Korea et al to stop pursuing nukes. The closest we've actually come to a nuclear exchange was "using serious threats" during the Cuban missile crisis, and the US is currently losing a war nominally to prevent nuclear proliferation to a state that fortunately doesn't actually have the capacity to retaliate except at very short range. You might remember a few other nominally intelligence-lead claims about weapons of mass destruction too not amounting to very much either... And in this case we're not talking about bombing sites if they appear to be used for uranium enrichment which isn't exactly an everyday need, we're talking about bombing them if they appear to be optimised to contain lots of computers. You don't even have to be an AI sceptic to imagine a policy of threatening to launch missile strikes on Chinese businesses if they build out capacity in a way distant observers don't like might be more likely to result in millions of deaths than the whatever runs on the Chinese business' computers...

gloryjulio 2mo ago

Do you think it's possible to bomb China's AI datacenters? They are already here, and they are progressing AI at their will. What will others do about it?

YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
It is possible for US to bomb anything. Just the retaliation could be huge. Would you had said the same thing if a country like was developing and testing deadly virus on live population. I think in 5 years, it is possible that the AI will become that topic(if we assume AI becomes good and start hacking and controlling everything).
- mbgerring 2mo ago
  lol, is it, because last time I checked we’re currently losing a war badly, and we’re out of munitions

notahacker 2mo ago

More or less of an existential threat than a conflict between nuclear powers because one of them decided to launch a unilateral strike against a datacentre located outside one of their cities just in case it hosted a particularly dangerous chatbot?

reducesuffering 2mo ago
Trolley problem. What's worse than all of humanity dead from ASI? Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could."
- notahacker 2mo ago
  most of humanity dead because some morons decided to try to kill everyone just in case the server farm evolved the inclination and the capacity to try to kill everyone... Trolley problem: on the left track is a class of schoolchildren. On the right track is a a computer which a Harry Potter fanfic author argues has magic powers and the marketing department of Apple kind of agrees. Do you let Eliezer persuade you to kill the kids?
  - reducesuffering 2mo ago
    no one dead because we're willing to use our means to enforce a restriction on a scenario that is likely on our trajectory to kill everyone. We also use serious threats to prevent nuclear proliferation that endangers everyone
    - notahacker 1mo ago
      Serious threats which have completely failed to persuade North Korea et al to stop pursuing nukes. The closest we've actually come to a nuclear exchange was "using serious threats" during the Cuban missile crisis, and the US is currently losing a war nominally to prevent nuclear proliferation to a state that fortunately doesn't actually have the capacity to retaliate except at very short range. You might remember a few other nominally intelligence-lead claims about weapons of mass destruction too not amounting to very much either... And in this case we're not talking about bombing sites if they appear to be used for uranium enrichment which isn't exactly an everyday need, we're talking about bombing them if they appear to be optimised to contain lots of computers. You don't even have to be an AI sceptic to imagine a policy of threatening to launch missile strikes on Chinese businesses if they build out capacity in a way distant observers don't like might be more likely to result in millions of deaths than the whatever runs on the Chinese business' computers...