Bernie Sanders tells OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta to pause AI development or face Senate action

Any pause will have to be a global treaty; the unfortunate reality is that we’re in an arms race now, and despite Sanders’ threats otherwise, I don’t think there is going to be much will to pause in the US while China keeps developing.

And to be clear, I think it would be every wise to pause development and, afterwards, keep the pace slow. We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals. The technology is useful and isn’t going anywhere, but that doesn’t mean we have to develop it as quickly as possible without regard to the real dangers it brings with it.

Any pause will have to be a global treaty

Which is why tech CEOs love to promote it. They know it’ll never happen.

We know how to make “AI” more capable, but we don’t know how to make it stay aligned with human goals.

“Alignment” is almost entirely a myth cooked up by AI companies who want to make their word generators sound scarier than they are. There’s no such thing: the next word generator generates next word. It’s unpredictable because it’s built that way. “Hallucination” and “going rogue”, all poor terms and pathetic attempts to fearmonger and humanize, are identical functions to “working” and “aligning”.

The technology… isn’t going anywhere

The “it’s just inevitable” cliche rears its ugly head again.

That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren’t going anywhere, crime isn’t going anywhere, etc.

Except NFTs were never used to nearly even close to the same amount as AI, it had much less usecases and the one that did “catch on” was idiotic.

Crime is a symptom of a problem, not a technological advancement, apples and oranges.

AI the tool is never going away in the same way the internet is never going away. (Barring our entire civilization collapses and we lose knowledge/connectivity/life lmao)

“AI is never going away” neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.

The point of the “its not going away” comment is because a shocking number of people think the solution to AI is to, I dunno, delete it.

As a technology, it is out in the world. It isn’t going away any more than electricity or the internet. So any solutions to the real problems with AI that are essentially “make it go away” are essentially nonsense. Might as well propose wishing it away with a genie.

“It’s not going away” is not equivalent to “there’s nothing we can do to solve the problems”; it just means that the solution has to be in a framework where it is implemented alongside AI.

That is a solution, make it very unappealing to use it. If it’s clearly a crime, most people don’t have the hardware to do it, and others don’t have the motivation, it’d help a lot. And again, NFTs

Most people do have the hardware to run them. Maybe not super high end ones but middle of the road ones.

Again, the solution won’t ever be “no more AI”. The solution will be regulation, social safety nets, taxation, etc.

They are crimes, they stole their data, and the ones people can run locally still are a part of those crime rings. Plus the ones that can run locally aren’t very good, not that the larger ones are too great either

What court case are you referring to?

What court case did I bring up?

How do you determine that a crime has been committed without a court case?

Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened

That breathtakingly wrong. Yikes.

Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes.

Yes, you need a verdict from a court to know whether someone committed a crime. Is this not taught in school anymore??

You can’t just accuse someone of breaking the law and end it there. Holy hell.

you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it’s a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it’s not magically not a crime if they aren’t sued over it.

So if someone on the internet calls you a thief and I see it, you’re a thief?

Think this through.

So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again.

Says the person who set up a strawman about what you imagine might say about the first amendment vs freedom of speech. lol

I’ll make this easy. An accusation is not evidence, let alone proof. That is not up for debate; it’s a fact. You can be accused of literally anything.

I tried to hold your hand and walk you there, but that clearly wasn’t working.

Would you even want it to work the way you did falsely believe it works? Do you want any allegation to be enough to label someone a criminal? Have you spent even 30 seconds considering the implications of this? Seems not.