Conversely, if all actors are given equal access at the same time, no such lone bad actor can be in a position to maintain a hidden advantage.
OpenAI's actions continue to be more than merely annoying.
It's not a zero-sum game where you can level the playing field and say everything's good.
Leveling the playing field won't instantly make everyone safe, but leaving it uneven certainly doesn't either.
Dito for the sewage/water system or other critical infrastructure.
Not saying OpenAI needs to be elected or not, just expanding on what (I think) they meant.
If we accept that the public having access to GPT-4 has the same level of risk as the public having access to nukes would than I'd argue that we should treat GPT-4 the same way as nukes and restrict access to only the military. I don't think that's the case here though and that since the risks are very different, we should be fine with not treating them the same.
At least with ai you can cut the power, for now anyway.
With something that can be so trivially copied as a LLM that isn't possible.
So in this scenario, one could argue that ensuring equitable distribution of this potentially dangerous technology at least levels the playing field.
North Korea is dirt poor and they managed to get nukes. Most countries could do the same.
Then, you could say the exact same thing you're saying now... but in that case, nukes-slash-nuclear-energy still shouldn't be distributed to everyone.
Even nukes-slash-anti-nuke-shields shouldn't be distributed to everyone, unless you're absolutely sure the shields will scale up at least as fast as the nukes.
Problem is, if it only takes one person to end the world using AI in a malevolent fashion, then I think human nature there is unfortunately something that can be relied upon.
In order to prevent that scenario, the solution is likely to be more complicated than the problem. That represents a fundamental issue, in my view: it's much easier to destroy the world with AI than to save it.
To use your own example: currently there's far more nukes than there are systems capable of neutralizing nukes, and the reason for that owes to the complexities inherent to defensive technology; it's vastly harder.
I fear AI may be not much different in that regard.
I'm actually starting to wonder how long these systems actually stay publically accessible?
On the other hand, people might be able to use these machines to gain better insights into thwarting attacks...seems like we're on slippery slope at the moment.
In the meantime, I expect our every interaction with this technology will be carefully monitored and controlled. As long as we have to beg for access to it, or are limited to what others train it on, we'll never be a threat to those with the money and access to use these tools to their full potential.
I think universities might help serve to bridge the gap though, as they have in the past when it came to getting powerful new technology into the hands of the not-quite-as privileged. Maybe we'll see some cool things come out of that space.
What you are looking for is a publication known as "Industrial Society and Its Future"
> 1995 anti-technology essay by Ted Kaczynski… contends that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology, while forcing humans to adapt to machinery, creating a sociopolitical order that suppresses human freedom and potential.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-societ...
I agree very much with Teddy about the problem but I don't condone his solution. I don't have a better one though.
At this point I'm predicting that the transition to renewables will fail due to the enormous costs involved (aside from transportation there are also things like converting metal industries to electric), combined with increased EROEI of fossil fuels eventually making extraction too expensive to maintain expected outputs.
It's still somewhat far into the future but it's seems to be happening, which is a comfort from the perspective of Ted's insights, but on the other hand it's not going to be any less violent, even though it would happen as an unintended side effect rather than through conscious effort.
People will once again need to become skillful in multiple areas, compared to the current specialization economy where every person is pretty much useless unless part of the "machinery".
If you are refering to the bombing campaign, that was a publicity campaign for the manifesto, not related to the content of the manifesto.
I don't think the manifesto itself advocated violence.
193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.
> 174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite-just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.
People have spilled a lot more ink than that on this subject! And most of them weren't also terrorists.