3 ms·

This 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.

by foolin 14d ago

mdp2021 14d ago
Nuclear 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...
- foolin 14d ago
  I didn't say the challenges would be the same.. You just indicated they were worthwhile for anyone who believes the anthropic principle is why they haven't seen a world with no nuclear treaties decades later.
- camgunz 14d ago
  The bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable.
  - mdp2021 14d ago
    Explain «Banning Artificial Superintelligence so no person or entity [etc.]». Or you think that «Advanced AI development» does not imply attempting the achievement of Intelligence?
    - camgunz 14d ago
      I don't think working on LLMs is the same as working on superintelligence (personally I don't think superintelligence is on the table, but whatever)
      - mdp2021 14d ago
        LLMs are either a toy if they are not reliable and a mockery if not actually intelligent; to make them intelligent, to achieve Intelligence, is what Sanders proposed to make illegal. What we are striving to do is to achieve Intelligence - it cannot be different.
        camgunz 13d ago
        Finally, we agree. Even Dario Amodei thinks we should halt work on intelligence until we can do it safely.
        mdp2021 12d ago
        > we agree We don't. The need for Intelligence to fill the scarcity is unthinkable. The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented. To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example. To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity. What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing.
        camgunz 12d ago
        > The need for Intelligence to fill the scarcity is unthinkable. I just wanna say, I really admire the irony of this sentence. Maybe once we invent superintelligence it will be able to think enough to tell us how badly we needed it before we had it. > The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented. It isn't. If we stopped all work on LLMs and AI we'd be more than OK. There's no imminent danger or threat. > To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example. Something can't both be smarter than us and completely controllable by us. The whole point of inventing superintelligence is so it can do things we can't. Humans can already break out of sandboxes, invent bioweapons, manipulate each other to invent bioweapons, etc. What makes you think superintelligence can't or won't do these things? > To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity. Hey, you're talking to a guy who's got a list of tech to ban: nukes, social media, all forms of video news, etc. What does Taylor Swift say, "I've got a blank space, baby, and I'll write your name (Claude)". > What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing. You literally just ban it and turn it off. People are always like "you can't ban it bawwwwwww!" but we ban tech all the time. Try buying a bunch of fertilizer, try buying equipment to research gain of function, try buying anti-aircraft guns, try building fuselages to enrich uranium. LLM research requires extraordinary amounts of hardware, electricity, data, funding, and all the things upstream of that (cooling, shipping, space, financing, etc.) The effort you'd have to go through to do this clandestinely, illegally, while also finding researchers willing to take the risk is all prohibitive. There's a list of all nuclear scientists in the entire world. They have to go to school somewhere. Same for AI researchers. If, say, half a dozen of them suddenly disappear, and a random town in Wyoming suddenly starts making millions of requests per second across the whole internet, guzzling electricity, producing a lot of heat, or ordering a shitload of insulation and ducting, we'll know!

This 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.

by foolin 14d ago

This 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 14d ago

Nuclear 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...

foolin 14d ago
I didn't say the challenges would be the same.. You just indicated they were worthwhile for anyone who believes the anthropic principle is why they haven't seen a world with no nuclear treaties decades later.
camgunz 14d ago
The bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable.
- mdp2021 14d ago
  Explain «Banning Artificial Superintelligence so no person or entity [etc.]». Or you think that «Advanced AI development» does not imply attempting the achievement of Intelligence?
  - camgunz 14d ago
    I don't think working on LLMs is the same as working on superintelligence (personally I don't think superintelligence is on the table, but whatever)
    - mdp2021 14d ago
      LLMs are either a toy if they are not reliable and a mockery if not actually intelligent; to make them intelligent, to achieve Intelligence, is what Sanders proposed to make illegal. What we are striving to do is to achieve Intelligence - it cannot be different.
      - camgunz 13d ago
        Finally, we agree. Even Dario Amodei thinks we should halt work on intelligence until we can do it safely.
        mdp2021 12d ago
        > we agree We don't. The need for Intelligence to fill the scarcity is unthinkable. The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented. To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example. To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity. What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing.
        camgunz 12d ago
        > The need for Intelligence to fill the scarcity is unthinkable. I just wanna say, I really admire the irony of this sentence. Maybe once we invent superintelligence it will be able to think enough to tell us how badly we needed it before we had it. > The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented. It isn't. If we stopped all work on LLMs and AI we'd be more than OK. There's no imminent danger or threat. > To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example. Something can't both be smarter than us and completely controllable by us. The whole point of inventing superintelligence is so it can do things we can't. Humans can already break out of sandboxes, invent bioweapons, manipulate each other to invent bioweapons, etc. What makes you think superintelligence can't or won't do these things? > To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity. Hey, you're talking to a guy who's got a list of tech to ban: nukes, social media, all forms of video news, etc. What does Taylor Swift say, "I've got a blank space, baby, and I'll write your name (Claude)". > What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing. You literally just ban it and turn it off. People are always like "you can't ban it bawwwwwww!" but we ban tech all the time. Try buying a bunch of fertilizer, try buying equipment to research gain of function, try buying anti-aircraft guns, try building fuselages to enrich uranium. LLM research requires extraordinary amounts of hardware, electricity, data, funding, and all the things upstream of that (cooling, shipping, space, financing, etc.) The effort you'd have to go through to do this clandestinely, illegally, while also finding researchers willing to take the risk is all prohibitive. There's a list of all nuclear scientists in the entire world. They have to go to school somewhere. Same for AI researchers. If, say, half a dozen of them suddenly disappear, and a random town in Wyoming suddenly starts making millions of requests per second across the whole internet, guzzling electricity, producing a lot of heat, or ordering a shitload of insulation and ducting, we'll know!