5 ms·

It's not naivete/goodness, this is totally aligned with their playbook of trying to get AI to be heavily regulated.

by ericd 5d ago

consumer451 5d ago
OK, that is a plausible argument given Dario's public positions. I have to admit that I keep cutting them some slack for standing up against automated kill chains, and domestic surveillance.
- 15155 5d ago
  Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red tape. The point of regulation is to kill competitors and prevent private individuals from having unfettered access.
- ericd 5d ago
  To be clear, I don't think they're doing it because they want all the money, I think they truly believe that this is existentially threatening, and are trying to regulate their open source competition away because they think that's the way to be safe. That they can be trusted with the power, but if it's out and about, that's unsafe - they like to compare it to nukes, and they want nuclear non-proliferation.
  - consumer451 5d ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is the most "I get both sides" issue in my mind these days. I am still not sure where I fall, or if there is even a correct position with which to agree. It really seems like there are no good options. On the one hand, if all knowledge work ended up in two dude's hands, that is really bad. On the other hand, if every surviving child victim of war (US, RU, IL, CN, whatever) has access to the knowledge to make custom viruses for a few grand, that is also really bad.
    - ericd 5d ago
      Yeah, it's really tough, there's so much potential good, and so much potential bad. My intuition says that decentralized will probably be better, the other way seems to concentrate power while also not really keeping it out of the hands of anyone. It doesn't seem likely that the US firms will be able to convince the Chinese to agree to an international regulatory framework for this stuff. Opinion polls there have the populace being quite optimistic about the benefits of this stuff, and I think the cat's too far out of the bag to really put it back in, anyway.

It's not naivete/goodness, this is totally aligned with their playbook of trying to get AI to be heavily regulated.

by ericd 5d ago

It's not naivete/goodness, this is totally aligned with their playbook of trying to get AI to be heavily regulated.

OK, that is a plausible argument given Dario's public positions. I have to admit that I keep cutting them some slack for standing up against automated kill chains, and domestic surveillance.

15155 5d ago
Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red tape. The point of regulation is to kill competitors and prevent private individuals from having unfettered access.
ericd 5d ago
To be clear, I don't think they're doing it because they want all the money, I think they truly believe that this is existentially threatening, and are trying to regulate their open source competition away because they think that's the way to be safe. That they can be trusted with the power, but if it's out and about, that's unsafe - they like to compare it to nukes, and they want nuclear non-proliferation.
- consumer451 5d ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is the most "I get both sides" issue in my mind these days. I am still not sure where I fall, or if there is even a correct position with which to agree. It really seems like there are no good options. On the one hand, if all knowledge work ended up in two dude's hands, that is really bad. On the other hand, if every surviving child victim of war (US, RU, IL, CN, whatever) has access to the knowledge to make custom viruses for a few grand, that is also really bad.
  - ericd 5d ago
    Yeah, it's really tough, there's so much potential good, and so much potential bad. My intuition says that decentralized will probably be better, the other way seems to concentrate power while also not really keeping it out of the hands of anyone. It doesn't seem likely that the US firms will be able to convince the Chinese to agree to an international regulatory framework for this stuff. Opinion polls there have the populace being quite optimistic about the benefits of this stuff, and I think the cat's too far out of the bag to really put it back in, anyway.