4 ms·
How do we stop china and russia from developing it? How come nobody seems to be talking about the obvious international treaty that would be necessary to actual
by ashleyn 21d ago
How do we stop china and russia from developing it? How come nobody seems to be talking about the obvious international treaty that would be necessary to actually ban superintelligence from being developed? At least we can deliberate some kind of enforcement mechanism in the process...
- moojacob 21d agoMake it international law and bomb anyone who doesn’t comply
- moojacob 20d agoTo be clear I do not endorse this opinion I am just answering the “what can be done” question.
- cwillu 21d agoPlenty of people are discussing that.
- neonstatic 21d agoOh, that's easy. Bernie will pick 11 volunteers and together they will be dropped off behind enemy lines. Let's call them "the Dirty Dozen". They will capture the evil bastards who violated American law outside of US borders (that's just evil) and bring them to Justice™ (Impossible is nothing. Call 1-800-JUSTICE. Conditions apply). > the obvious international treaty That's even easier. We just take the international treaty on cloud computing as a base and...
- camgunz 21d agoThe point is an arms race is bad for everyone. "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but I do know WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" type of stuff.
- neonstatic 21d agoThe Cold War was an arms race that gave us wonderful things: amazing technologies we still use today (GPS, the Internet) and the collapse of the soviet union.
- camgunz 20d ago"Were we on the brink of a nuclear holocaust multiple times? Maybe yes, maybe no. But hey Google Maps!"
- neonstatic 20d ago"Were we on the brink of that thing that we already did in Japan and nothing happened a few times? Oh my god, I need to hide in a cave and never do anything outside again" I can play that game, too.
- camgunz 20d agoI honestly have no idea what this word salad means.
- mdp2021 19d agoIt means that not all risks justify stall.
- camgunz 19d agoOf course not. Even the developers of AI admit there's a huge risk though, no? Even they are calling for a slowdown. Do you think you know more than they do?
- mdp2021 19d agoI know well enough; I'd be surprised if they know more than I do. And I also know very heavily that we cannot stall into societies of empowered deficient humans.
- x312 21d agoMIRI has one: https://intelligence.org/2026/05/12/summary-an-international-agreement-to-prevent-the-premature-creation-of-artificial-superintelligence/ https://intelligence.org/2026/05/12/summary-an-international...
- mitxela 21d agoIrrelevant. Let them - it brings negative value.
- baggy_trough 21d agoWhat if you're wrong?
- mitxela 21d agoWhat if you're wrong?
- baggy_trough 20d agoYou seem to have hallucinated that I made a claim.
- dyauspitr 20d agoHe’s utterly wrong.
- camgunz 21d agoTwo things I would say. One: nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI. Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP. It's an extension of the policy that's made us dependent on Chinese labor and manufacturing: win on the economics by any means necessary, wait for the other producers to die, enshittify (extract geopolitical concessions, in this case).
- mdp2021 21d ago> One: nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful A number of non adequately reliable actors owning "the bomb" and a number of threatened actors increasingly wanting "the bomb". Not really.
- foolin 21d agoThis is relative to something like every nation owning nuclear weapons by 1960 and civil wars usually beginning with a nuclear strike by a standing government.
- mdp2021 21d agoNuclear proliferation is not proper in context. The bill in question in the submission is not about preserving a status quo, it is about banning the technology. A ban on technology results in underground research, migration of intellectuals, monopolies, seething parties...
- mcv 21d agoBy international agreement, obviously. There are tons of international agreements to regulate all sorts of things. It's generally a pretty good way to prevent a race to the bottom. Or in this case, a potential race to the end of the world.
- mdp2021 21d ago> to the end of the world Or, if things go well, ending a long very bad chapter.
- skeledrew 21d agoWhy would China - or worse, Russia - sign any treaty with the US that'd make them worse off if they actually follow through?
- dragonelite 21d agoThe biggest problem is that the US has shown not trustable when it comes to treaty. You can have a treaty with the US but the US can just use Israel or some other proxy to do the advance research and development for them..
- applicative 21d agoIt’s one of the only countries that reliably follows treaties. Unfortunately they are very hard to pass, which is why the agreements falsely called treaties are so easy to reverse - they are all personal executive orders like JCPOA (alas)
- 1over137 21d agoWhy would they trust the US to honour anything they sign? Look how Trump has ignored the trade deal he signed with Canada.
- mcv 21d agoHow would it make them worse off? If everybody agrees that AI is a threat to humanity, but also a possible edge over rivals, then the threat should be enough reason to get everybody to agree. There are international agreements on tons of things that work the same way.