8 ms·

Two 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 develop

Two 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 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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 5d ago
      The bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable.
      - mdp2021 5d 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 4d 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 4d 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 3d ago
        Finally, we agree. Even Dario Amodei thinks we should halt work on intelligence until we can do it safely.
skeledrew 5d ago
> nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; I'm assuming your bar of success takes in account that 8-9 nation states have nukes. So it follows that 8-9 nation states should have ASI.
- camgunz 5d ago
  No I think it's fine for 9 countries to have existing models and to coordinate development with each other, which is the general outline of all NPTs.
graemep 5d ago
> nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI. Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems. A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed.
- camgunz 5d ago
  After over 80 years since the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons, and no one's used one on another country since. If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
  - graemep 4d ago
    My point is that it has worked for nuclear weapons because there are deterrents to using them. The acknowledged nuclear powers have all pledged to only use them in self defence. No one is going to develop AI and not use it.
    - camgunz 4d ago
      Countries use nuclear power too. The reason they don't launch nukes at the drop of a hat is MAD. I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI.
      - bigbadfeline 4d ago
        > I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI. Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matter what kind.
        camgunz 3d ago
        People are working really hard to not see the "until there's a federal commission and safe processes" part.
throw282633 4d ago
> 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. Is this really how most Americans think?
- joquarky 4d ago
  Yes. In fact, nearly everything is perceived as tribalistic us-vs-them team sports now, including politics.
- camgunz 3d ago
  I don't know, but it's also what Kevin Rudd thinks [0]. He was Australia's prime minister (twice, lol), Australia's foreign minister, a foreign service officer working in China, and the author of a dissertation on Xi Jinping. [0]: https://archive.ph/VzJKU https://archive.ph/VzJKU

mdp2021 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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 5d 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 5d ago
    The bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable.
    - mdp2021 5d 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 4d 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 4d 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 3d ago
        Finally, we agree. Even Dario Amodei thinks we should halt work on intelligence until we can do it safely.

skeledrew 5d ago

> nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; I'm assuming your bar of success takes in account that 8-9 nation states have nukes. So it follows that 8-9 nation states should have ASI.

camgunz 5d ago
No I think it's fine for 9 countries to have existing models and to coordinate development with each other, which is the general outline of all NPTs.

graemep 5d ago

> nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI. Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems. A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed.

camgunz 5d ago
After over 80 years since the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons, and no one's used one on another country since. If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
- graemep 4d ago
  My point is that it has worked for nuclear weapons because there are deterrents to using them. The acknowledged nuclear powers have all pledged to only use them in self defence. No one is going to develop AI and not use it.
  - camgunz 4d ago
    Countries use nuclear power too. The reason they don't launch nukes at the drop of a hat is MAD. I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI.
    - bigbadfeline 4d ago
      > I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI. Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matter what kind.
      - camgunz 3d ago
        People are working really hard to not see the "until there's a federal commission and safe processes" part.

throw282633 4d ago

> 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. Is this really how most Americans think?

joquarky 4d ago
Yes. In fact, nearly everything is perceived as tribalistic us-vs-them team sports now, including politics.
camgunz 3d ago
I don't know, but it's also what Kevin Rudd thinks [0]. He was Australia's prime minister (twice, lol), Australia's foreign minister, a foreign service officer working in China, and the author of a dissertation on Xi Jinping. [0]: https://archive.ph/VzJKU https://archive.ph/VzJKU