If the rest of the world follows them on regulations they've thought through before anyone else, then I don't know what you would call that other than leading? Like, definitionally that's what leading is.
It's interesting you're so derisive of actual, pragmatic leadership, of y'know deciding how we as a society will relate to new technologies - not just unthinkingly building gadgets.
It is telling that most aggressive forms of “capitalism” plead for government involvement to permanently limit new competition. I own something and I don’t want anyone else to have a chance. The marginal cost of bribing a senator is tiny tiny tiny compared to the value.
Completely correct. We are moving into a world where any person can have anything they want, only limited by capacity to produce it. People love information and digest great quantities of it. The marginal cost of information production is going to zero. This is only bad for people who spend their time shuffling bits. If you want to not suffer, go do things other than move bits around.
And what about when general purpose robots become practical? What will people do then?
I don't understand this view of "AI empowers workers more than capital" at all. To me it's the exact opposite. Workers hold political and economic power today because they are needed. When that is no longer true, those in power will have no incentive to listen to them. The political economy of unregulated AGI development feels incredibly bleak: https://borretti.me/article/when-the-future-doesnt-need-us
> It’s a bit of a self-serving argument, don’t you think?
I would call it more of a self-selecting one. Anthropic is basically hiring people with that mentality. I'm pretty sure that most of them do sincerely believe it, too. I'm skeptical about Dario himself though. The man had an opportunity to show moral backbone, and failed to do so; why should I trust him on that again?
> And how does that relate to the ask for oligopoly licensing within global democracy?
They are basically saying that they'll stop if everybody else does, which requires some kind of global enforcement mechanism.
> “We must build the nuclear bomb first in order to make sure no one else builds one.” This the most nonsense, disingenuous argument imaginable.
The difference between nuclear bomb and AGI (as understood by the likes of Anthropic) is that the latter triggers the technological singularity that renders any runner-ups moot. That is, so long as AGI is developed, we're going to get our robot overlords either way, but whoever gets there first gets to define their ethical system. If that is one's perspective, and if one sincerely believes that they are the only ones who can do it right, it's a coherent argument. It's just that the premises are very arrogant.
Your analogy with nukes actually works better for the position that AI development needs to be unconstrained because otherwise we'll lose the arms race to China. That is basically a repeat of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_lette.... I honestly don't know where I am on this. Realistically, if AI is indeed a power multiplier - and with all the recent security stuff it's hard to not see it that way - then an arms race feels inevitable, especially given the current worldwide political situation. I could believe in sincere international cooperation on this back in 1990s, but there's way too much saber rattling all around for it to work (and note that this goes both ways, i.e. China can similarly not be certain that US isn't secretly developing more powerful AI even if we do publicly announce a freeze).
All of the things it has done is just what people are already doing. Every single one. It helps, but there are already people doing this stuff. And we already have defenses against the existing attacks. We might have to defend better, but the real problem is “Who is setting the moral compass over generations.” One one hand, that will inherently fall to future generations. On the other, we are laying the groundwork.
Imagine you use it to inflict trauma on your cruelest political enemy. Then next year they do that to you. That is war, and we already do it. But we don’t want people / governments in charge that are going to do this.
God knows we have governments and individuals doing this historically, and this is probably the greatest source of historic instability. It might be the single best argument for open models — a unified frontier where no single exploit is going to represent capture.
This is exactly the opposite of what Dario proposes.
Ok - but the post I was responding to was suggesting we do the opposite and provide the intelligence to the people so I’m not sure how your reply rebuts my suggestions.
No, why are you saying they didn't step up. They lost the presidency, the house and the senate and the supreme court has had a conservative majority since before Bidens term. So what didn't they do, that they could have done?
Most American tech workers, myself included, have been asking for program to be reformed so it’s actually given to highly skilled workers and not used as method of outsourcing in the US.
It’s not a new problem but Democrats and non Trump Republicans have done nothing and here comes Trump trying to something. It won’t survive court challenges most likely.
Don't give away our job to Indians? I mean what do you want here, it's not a post-grad course. If H1Bs are for "highly specialized knowledge," why the fuck are we taking in Indians at below par cost for American "highly specialized knowledge?"
Why is there not a highly significant fee or compensation threshold to prevent abuse?
But why not? Your [right to a] job isn't something enshrined in the constitution. Congress deemed it appropriate for your job to be given to someone else, for they provide better value than you do. The answer to all your "why" questions is - "Because Congress deemed it so".
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The "claim", a black and white, "Tesla redacts everything, everyone else redacts nothing" was never really a claim. But what IS not false:
There is a bunch of data that is "missing", both from Tesla and other manufacturers.
Tesla declines/redacts data far more than other manufacturers, to the point where in many cases, the majority of data is redacted for a given incident.
What’s the situation where this is useful? Seems like ‘replace your remote duckDB instance—used to replace a DB server—with duckDB instance + a flight server (or a bunch of them!)’. Who has a problem for which this is the solution?
reply