5 ms·

> A better approach might be for governments to utilize their vast resources [...] in a safe and moral fashion. Serious question—you’re joking, right? Based o

by nzp 12y ago

> A better approach might be for governments to utilize their vast resources [...] in a safe and moral fashion. Serious question—you’re joking, right? Based on history and sober common sense, do you really think what governments in general are doing (and have always done) can be described as safe and moral in anything but the most cynical way?

rl3 12y ago
While I tend to agree with you, there are exceptions. Based on history, NASA is a prime example. A government-run organization with a solid track record of contribution to humanity as a whole, not to mention accomplishing feats previously thought impossible.
- nzp 12y ago
  Of course, and I did say “in general” having in mind things like NASA. But it's also, in a way, great example of the point. Take the space race for example. The government's motives for the Moonshot were at best morally dubious. Apart from the Cold War context, there is evidence that the whole idea got traction when Johnson realized it would bring investments and jobs to Texas. And space agencies are also a good example of what happens when government bureaucracies put pressure on scientists and engineers. O-rings, and Soviet space disasters come to mind. In fact, I'll be so bold to say that the best way for these fears of SMI to come to life is putting the research under tight government control and regulation.
  - rl3 12y ago
    Not to mention the National Reconnaissance Office exerting considerable influence upon the design requirements for NASA's STS program, most notably the size of the orbiter's payload bay. Obviously co-opting an AGI project in similar fashion would almost certainly be immoral. However, it is worth noting that as a result of NRO's requirements, deploying large payloads such as the Hubble Space Telescope became a reality. Apples and oranges, I suppose. --- >In fact, I'll be so bold to say that the best way for these fears of SMI to come to life is putting the research under tight government control and regulation. First, in the context of inevitability, it would be preferable to achieve the advent of AGI as the result of careful intent, rather than accidental discovery. Second, I was not advocating for centralization nor regulation. The private sector should be free to pursue whatever AI research it desires, unencumbered. What I was advocating for, is a project of massive scale and resources to compete. Despite the drawbacks of government backing, there is no equal in terms of resources and the ability to enforce secrecy or safety protocols. If we spin up potentially unsafe AGI in the name of research, would you rather have it contained via airgapped servers in some swanky corporate office, or in an underground facility complete with armed guards? No one would accidentally have a cellphone on them in the latter environment.

by nzp 12y ago

rl3 12y ago

While I tend to agree with you, there are exceptions. Based on history, NASA is a prime example. A government-run organization with a solid track record of contribution to humanity as a whole, not to mention accomplishing feats previously thought impossible.

nzp 12y ago
Of course, and I did say “in general” having in mind things like NASA. But it's also, in a way, great example of the point. Take the space race for example. The government's motives for the Moonshot were at best morally dubious. Apart from the Cold War context, there is evidence that the whole idea got traction when Johnson realized it would bring investments and jobs to Texas. And space agencies are also a good example of what happens when government bureaucracies put pressure on scientists and engineers. O-rings, and Soviet space disasters come to mind. In fact, I'll be so bold to say that the best way for these fears of SMI to come to life is putting the research under tight government control and regulation.
- rl3 12y ago
  Not to mention the National Reconnaissance Office exerting considerable influence upon the design requirements for NASA's STS program, most notably the size of the orbiter's payload bay. Obviously co-opting an AGI project in similar fashion would almost certainly be immoral. However, it is worth noting that as a result of NRO's requirements, deploying large payloads such as the Hubble Space Telescope became a reality. Apples and oranges, I suppose. --- >In fact, I'll be so bold to say that the best way for these fears of SMI to come to life is putting the research under tight government control and regulation. First, in the context of inevitability, it would be preferable to achieve the advent of AGI as the result of careful intent, rather than accidental discovery. Second, I was not advocating for centralization nor regulation. The private sector should be free to pursue whatever AI research it desires, unencumbered. What I was advocating for, is a project of massive scale and resources to compete. Despite the drawbacks of government backing, there is no equal in terms of resources and the ability to enforce secrecy or safety protocols. If we spin up potentially unsafe AGI in the name of research, would you rather have it contained via airgapped servers in some swanky corporate office, or in an underground facility complete with armed guards? No one would accidentally have a cellphone on them in the latter environment.