4 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 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 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...
- foolin 5d agoI 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 agoThe bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable.
- mdp2021 5d agoExplain «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 agoI 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 agoLLMs 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 agoFinally, we agree. Even Dario Amodei thinks we should halt work on intelligence until we can do it safely.