this will only hurt the us further, many will simply build outside of america.

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.

Fine, let them waste money and effort on garbage.

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.

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

Thankfully it’s not so dangerous

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.

Right, and regardless of sci-fi future potentials, there is a current reality and we’re in it and only have so much time to affect it’s evolution. All of these likely intelligent people completely ignoring reality isn’t helping define and construct the world we want tomorrow.

"“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

Head in the sand just like climate change deniers

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.

I’m down with that.

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 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.

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.

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.

Hmmm… Good point. I made the mistake of forgetting that no one will play fairly.