- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m sure Bernie has good intentions but this is exactly what Altman and Amodei want and why they’re constantly shouting how dangerous AI is.
Any AI startup can then be labeled as developing artificial superintelligence. Not them though, they’re working together with the government.
If AI is so dangerous it needs to be immediately banned. The only allowed usage (If any) is research and it is heavily restricted, with heavy oversight from multiple governments. Otherwise its just bullshit
It is not. They are spouting this lie and prompting their models to go rogue because they want to be the only trusted company that can “handle them”. It’s all about control and creating a monopoly.
I believe there is truth in both sides of this argument.
Yeah but neither of those sides are in favor of the regulatory capture monopoly that liberals always think is a good idea.
That has about as much to do with reality as me believing I sing well in the shower.
This is lemmy, balanced takes are not allowed.
This plays into the big corps’ plans.
Ideally they’d like self-regulation. If this isn’t feasible (for example, because the public hates data centers and AI slop) their next best option is government regulation ASAP, because it is likely to be ineffective as written by our current government, and enable them as “too big to fail/too big to care” while any startups are suppressed.
But it’s not just me saying it. https://shellypalmer.com/2023/06/ai-the-unseen-threat-and-the-agi-smoke-screen/
From the AI industry’s point of view, if regulators say no to self-regulation, the next best thing would be governments imposing regulations ASAP. Inept government regulation (and that is what we are likely to get) would practically ensure that big tech stays big and small companies are shut out of the AI innovation race because big tech is in a much better position to “game” any rules regulators might impose. […]
There are probably less biased sources out there – this author is the CEO of an AI consulting company – but i think they’re right.
Thats why I say take it away from them completely. If the big dogs can’t handle it, no one gets it. Or its regulated to the point thats its profit us worthless
I’m down with that.
Thankfully it’s not so dangerous
“I resigned from Anthropic today… Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt… many executives couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible, but I hear the same people express fear privately.”
Jacob Coxen senior researcher at Anthropic, previously at OpenAI
“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic alignment lead
I wouldn’t say that, the amount of vulnerabilities it’s discovering (and capable of exploiting) is frightening
This is such a wild take to be getting this many upvotes. If nothing happened in LLM development from this day forward they’d still be absurdly dangerous: both in an information security context and a social engineering context.
Lemmy is absolutely head in the sand about LLMs and it is wild. You can dislike LLMs and acknowledge their capabilities [and limitations] at the same time.
You and I are the only ones apparently.
LLMs entering the world have revealed two very different types of crazies and I’m starting to think they’re everywhere. It’s quite tiring to have to constantly say “no they’re not useless” and “no they’re not super god” instead of engage with an actually interesting discussion.
I don’t really understand why lemmy thinks what it thinks on this one. To me it’s undeniable that it’s improving fast and it’s capable today of replacing a great many current job roles. Putting our heads in the sand isn’t going to make it go away.
I wouldn’t be sure he has any good intentions.
Trump wants no AI regulation.
This is just the opposite of that which is what usually works for opposition politicians.
Reducing Bernie to the “opposite politician”, well that’s definitely a take for the ages.
Not them though, they’re working together with the government.
Isn’t there a law for them who plan and prepare to grab the power? I mean, that’s what this Altman is doing all the time. Has been doing for at least 2 years now.
this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.
Fine, let them waste money and effort on garbage.
So what? What good has having AI “built” in the US done us?
Several communities have grouped together to protest the efforts. In face of a common enemy and all that. That’s the one good thing to have come out of all this bullshit; some class camaraderie that crosses the lines of political parties.
That’s not me saying that it wouldn’t have been better had this bullshit never come around.
I get your point, but I also argue “no it’s not.” The AI bros want to lie about how their super-special autocomplete is the most dangerous of all without any consequences. Good luck getting any employees to willingly substantiate your claims when 20 years in prison is on the line.
Even better, if they try to hack another company and claim their AI did it on its own, they get treated like a private company who decided to perform an unsanctioned nuclear test.
Make it dangerous for them to claim they’re dangerous.
Okay, fair, it’s not the ONLY reason they claim it’s dangerous. Obviously marketing is a large part of it. But they sure as hell would both like a duopoly setup enforced by LAW for themselves. Well at this point, I guess quadropoly? I doubt Google or Musk would give up their seats at the table. But anyone making an AI better or cheaper than the established players, would be deemed dangerous. Those working with the DoD would of course not be considered dangerous. Foreign models? Absolutely dangerous, restrict access as much as possible, especially to open weight ones.
Plus OpenAI’s IPO has been delayed due to the hype not being favorable enough, so it’s time to put on the brakes so that AGI can remain just around the corner for a little while longer.
That said, I do think Bernie’s idea of making the public voting stakeholders in AI companies is interesting. Existential threats notwithstanding, AI is having a significant impact in a lot of ways and the public interest should be represented. Though in practice I doubt that you’ll get the entire public voting in any meaningful direction so that 50% might not make any effective change.
The easiest way to regulate the AI industry - and any industry for that matter - is to make the board personally liable for any crimes committed by their product. Not liable in a corporate sense with a fine and a slap on the wrist, when their AI hacks into a water reservoir and causes 500 million of flood damage, but in a 20 years in federal prison sense. Same goes for self driving cars, or any other computer, machinery or combination thereof where humans are placing trust in its safe and legal operation. There should be a corporate negligence law of sorts that says if a company is not following the law, industry best practice, including auditing and implementation of all safeguards, safety and other mitigations then they are exposed to criminal liability.
There are people facing weed sentences with harsher time than developing rogue nuclear weapons
Americans are INSANE about how much the want criminals punished, in CA a guy got a life sentence for stealing a pizza when we tried to have a ‘‘three strikes your out’’ law that automatically gave life sentences at any third conviction which is fucking crazy in a state with tack on laws to the point you can get convicted of 10+ crimes on almost every single infraction, if you commit a felony with a pen or pencil in your pocket, that’s possession of a lethal weapon! it’s absurd. it’s still on the books the three strikes law, but it’s unenforceable because apparently having 60% of your population in prison for life is not a great plan for a civilization.
got to have stable source of slave labour
America has Private Prisons + Slavery is literally legal in the US for those in Prison.
As usual, it’s performative moralism hiding the real reason: $$$.
Performative moralism is a neat term to describe that part of the equation.
Murica!
Automatic life sentence is too much, maybe we can agree on an automatic 15 year sentence?
Also, 60% of the population committing felonies is insanity.
it’s really easy to make 60% of your population commit a felony. you just continue to pass laws with the assumption that draconian punishments deter crime. and you keep making lesser and lesser crimes felonies, and punishments harsher, and you can have judges who just want to funnel people into prison to fund their own personal investments. it also helps to have corrupt cops that want to make those felony collars to get promotions and raises. cops literally train each other to escalate things to felonies or find felony charges where clearly none should exist like calling a box cutter a ‘gravity knife’ and charging a felony and if that person isn’t hiring a quality lawyer the public defender with 600 cases says ‘you have 15 min of my time for this case, I glanced at it, I recommend you take a plea deal, our time is up, what’s your decision?’
Hey, you’re spot on with your example. I got arrested for a pocket knife which the officer managed to forcefully fling open and the charge was possession of a weapon in the 4th degree (“gravity knife”), a class A misdemeanor. I got a public defender, who got me a plea deal of 30 hours community service and not getting arrested for a year to get the case dismissed without a conviction. They also tried to claim I drove drunk, but alas I blew a 0.0000 on their breathalyzer, so that was a fail.
NYPD officers got caught on a massage board explaining in detail how to claim any knife at all could be called a gravity knife to get better arrest records for promotions, that’s why I used that example.
Side note, a judge finally ruled that “gravity knives” are legal in NY in 2017, so that particular “gotcha” is not a thing anymore.
Well, they were probably trying to develop that weed into rogue nuclear weapons.
Wouldn’t work. You’ll get blasted high, but what the missing is the mushroom
Yeah that’s another drug.
Imagine getting thrown into the oubliette for growing Girl Scout Cookies next to the roses.
That stuck out to me too. Who knew AK-47 and Sour Zzzkittles carried more prison time than enriched Uranium. To be fair, they’ll include a bunch of other charges for both scenarios.
is it just me, or is 20 years for a rogue nuclear weapon seem a bit light?
Nah, it’s okay. Even Putin has it
These AI labs shouldn’t be private profit-seeking corporations. They should be more like publicly-funded nonprofit research institutions like Fermilab or something. It doesn’t seem possible to even talk about the labs without feeling like you’re increasing their value. That’s a problem. It’s also a problem that the research and announcements from the labs sound like publicity stunts. It’s hard to tell what’s genuine and what’s buzz for the press. There’s this arms race between the labs that’s negatively affecting seemingly everything. This should all just be put to an end. Step on the brakes. I don’t claim to know how to do that when the Constitution makes private property sacred, but, you know, just throwing the idea out there… The Constitution can always be changed.
TIL, developing nuclear weapons is only 20 years in prison.
Detonation is another ten.
So you’re saying I could get out before my retirement?
Possessing a zine is 50.
Ikr, I chose the wrong profession
It’s not illegal to develop nuclear weapons. It’s illegal to endanger people with nuclear materials, though
Where’s the 20 year sentence for insider trading politicians?
Sad to see Bernie buy in to the AI hype. LLMs are not intelligent, they aren’t anything approximating intelligent, and feeding them more data will never make them “wake up.”
I can’t say whether he has bought in or not, but this could be useful toward the end of curtailing some of the most damaging economic ambitions, so long as it is applied across the board without “trusted established players” somehow being given a pass.
So it could him buying it at face value, and frankly who can blame him. Trying to discern reality from hype is tricky in this scenario, especially for a politician.
However whether the scenario is substantitve or simply everyone is spending and building and planning as if it were substantive, his reaction is equally useful, as slowing our roll is important in either case.
His style of ‘buy-in’ wouldn’t be as risky as the more pro-AI buy-in, like Trump.
I would say the use of the word “superintelligence” suggests he is buying into the hype, and is something “AI” companies will point at to say “See? Even our critics agree that AGI is on the way. Do you want to risk someone else making it first? Give us money and freedom from regulation or something something China.”
The reality is that LLMs are not even something that can be used as an actual foundation for intelligence, and the problems with “AI” are just the next iteration of the owner class trying to use technology to fuck over the working class. The problems are economic and climate-related, and the best way to mitigate them is a realistic assessment of how much this technology is actually worth.
Just saying that if I thought it could work, I might be inclined to use ASI as a bogeyman to induce people to actually do something to reign in this mess, even if I didn’t believe it. Not saying that Bernie consciously employs this strategy, but it’s a possibility.
Fair point about such a strategy potentially backfiring if it doesn’t work fully, then the risk of ‘the other guy’ becomes a risk of making everything even worse.
85-year old senators are not well known for their tech-literacy. If he has people around him just repeating the same narratives that we hear from the media and everyone else then he will have absolutely bought in to the hype.
He’s 100 years old.
Bernie falling for the trap. The AI companies want regulatory capture. They have NO moat otherwise.
If those comps are breaking laws, they need to be prosecuted for that. We don’t need new laws that can be exploited by the billionaires.
his recent spate of “demanding laws” with AI seems odd, as if it was benefiting them.
Yeah in my view (not US but applies regardless of country) the better thing would be to beef up court capacity then start prosecuting the absolute buggery out of anyone who uses, or negligently allows, a model under their control to commit crimes.
If you’re the master of a ship, your responsibility doesn’t end when you set the autohelm. Same with models in my view.
We can’t even punish blatantly obvious theft and bribery in our own government, at this point, why bother with another law?
I like Bernie, but he seems so quaint now compared to what he is up against. Good luck guy
I’ve been trying to figure out why he’s been— bothering me so much lately and you put it into words so perfectly. He’s to quaint for this world now.
This is stupid. He should instead deal with the stealing of works to feed the AI.
That should be added to the accusations list.
TIL: There are lot of senile old man in power in US, starting from President, … what’s next? Death sentence for coal mine workers?
I assume then there is an exception for the military, and it will have no teeth because of that.
People ought to realize the “military industrial complex” is also where they send things like burn pits, which means they don’t care much about environmental or physiological issues.
The problem with this is that Chinese companies are only a few months behind AFAIK. So unless there is some kind of international treaty, implementing a law like this only shifts the problem from “artificial superintelligence is coming* and the US has no laws on the books against its development” to “artificial superintelligence is coming* from China and the US has no effective laws on the books against its deployment**”.
*assuming the worst case scenario where the hype is real and AI technology continues to grow at current pace and becomes a genuine threat, which seems plausible with regards to cybersecurity and job security at least
**assuming that any foreign adversaries such as China or Russia or Iran would have no qualms on using such software against the US, which seems likely
Isn’t much of China’s AI progress coming from distilling US models and making them cheaper? Would they be able to develop its capabilities beyond what we have?
That would be a dangerous assumption. Ofc you can get away saying they’re distilling US models to ease the panic, but it’s an assumption, and would be catastrophic if turned wrong
Deepseek publicly claims to have created their models, by distilling competitors and that’s why they’re able to create them really really cheap.
There could be other motives behind such a claim, such as making competitors fear making their most powerful tools public.
Of course they have frontier labs around as well, at the very least at various universities.
True, and even if it is correct there’s no reason they couldn’t start training them without using that shortcut.
And for how much I shit on China, the only one actually providing an alternative that isn’t gifting your everything to a private company is some of the Chinese companies. They absolutely have their own intent on why this sophisticated models are open weight, but at the moment that only gives a positive to general people that have the hardware to run those models. And for something like Qwen 3.8 27B, it’s “not much”.
I’m not saying this shouldn’t happen, I’m just worried about what the consequences would be, especially considering the state of war between the US and Iran and considering the numerous attempts at attacking the West and the democratic system as a whole by the three countries I mentioned. Obviously the other side of the coin is that not doing it could also have similar consequences, except done by the US government.
Still crazy people get the same charge for driving around with some plants…
There’s a lot of shit we need to fix, but our justice system is a big one.
20 years should be the plea deal if they fess up and snitch on everyone else, not the max were seeking. The damage a wealthy person can do is astronomical. So we need to start sentencing them appropriately.
Life should be the minimum were seeking, even just causing power loss where they build a data center has killed people already. Wanton reckless endangerment resulting in death is a big deal even if you’re a billionaire, I’d say it’s a bigger deal because a billionaire has zero financial stress.
They can literally afford to take time and be careful, if they don’t then fuck em
If the US would fix its tax system, such that the wealthy paid 90% after a certain amount again (as they did under Eisenhower) without all these loopholes, the wealthy wouldn’t be so dangerous.
They could easily be rendered toothless before even worrying about how much time they deserve behind bars (which is still a lot).
If you look back, essentially no one ever paid those high tax rates, so your solution would do nothing.
Disagree. It was a marginal tax rate for income over $400k. There were relatively few millionaires back then, so with the current runaway class income divide, it would assuredly do something regarding modern multimillionaires and beyond.
The solution would have to be twofold: tax the wealthy properly and close the loopholes (like taxing unrealized gains).
Though in general, I’m not a huge fan of this solution, because it’s still pro-capitalism, but it would be a step in the right direction at the very least.
