I find it baffling that ideas like "govern compute" are even taken seriously. What the hell has happened to the ideals of freedom?! Does the government own us or something?
It's not entirely unreasonable if one truly believes that AI technologies are as dangerous as nuclear weapons. It's a big "if", but it appears that many people across the political spectrum are starting to truly believe it. If one accepts this assumption, then the question simply becomes "how" instead of "why". Depending on one's political position, proposed solutions include academic ones such as finding the ultimate mathematical model that guarantees "AI safety", to Cold War style ones with a level of control similar to Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Even a neo-Luddist solution such as destroying all advanced computing hardware becomes "not unthinkable" (a tech blogger gwern, a well-known personality in AI circles who's generally pro-tech and pro-AI, actually wrote an article years ago on its feasibility through terrorism because he thought it was an interesting hypothetical question).
I think most people who are strongly pro-AI/pro-acceleration - or, at any rate, not anti-AI - believe that either (A) there is no control problem (B) it will be solved (C) AI won't become independent and agentic (i.e. it won't face evolutionary pressure towards survival) or (D) AI capabilities will hit a ceiling soon (more so than just not becoming agentic).
If you strongly believe, or take as a prior, one of those things, then it makes sense to push the gas as hard as possible.
If you hold the opposite opinions, then it makes perfect sense to push the brakes as hard as possible, which is why "govern compute" can make sense as an idea.
The people pushing for "govern compute" are not pushing for "limit everyone's compute", they're pushing for "limit everyone's compute except us". Even if you believe there's going to be AGI, surely it's better to have distributed AGI than to have AGI only in the hands of the elites.
This is not a given. If your threat model includes "Runaway competition that leads to profit-seekers ignoring safety in a winner-takes-all contest", then the more companies are allowed to play with AI, the worse. Non-monopolies are especially bad.
If your threat model doesn't include that, then the same conclusions sound abhorrent and can be nearly guaranteed to lead to awful consequences.
Neither side is necessarily wrong, and chances are good that the people behind the first set of rules would agree that it'll lead to awful consequences — just not as bad as the alternative.
The argument of doing so is the same as Nuclear Non-Proliferation - because of its great abuse potential, giving the technology to everyone only causes random bombings of cities instead of creating a system with checks and balances.
I do not necessarily agree with it, but I found the reasoning is not groundless.
The world's superpowers enforce nuclear non-proliferation mainly because it allows them to keep unfair political and military advantages to themselves. At the same time, one cannot deny that centralized weapon ownership made the use of such weapons more controllable: These nuclear states are powerful enough to establish a somewhat responsible chain of command to avoid their unreasonable or accidental uses, and so far these attempts are still successful. Also, due to the fact that they are "too big to fail", they were forced to hire experts to make detailed analysis on the consequences of nuclear wars, and the resulted MAD doctrine discouraged them from starting such wars.
On the other hand, if the same nuclear technologies are available to everyone, the chance of an unreasonable or accidental nuclear war will be higher. If even resourceful superpowers can barely keep these nuclear weapons under safe political and technical control (as shown by multiple incidents and near-misses during the Cold War [0]), surely a less resourceful state or military in possession of equally destructive weapons will have even more difficulties on controlling their uses.
At least this is how the argument goes (so far, I personally take no position).
Of course, I clearly realized that centralized control is not infallible. Months ago, in a previous thread on OpenAI's refusal on publishing technical details of GPT-4, most people believed that they were using it as an excuse to maintain a monopolistic control. Instead, I argued that perhaps OpenAI truly values the problem of safety right now - but acting responsibly right now is not an indication that they will still act responsibly in the future. There's no guarantee that the safety considerations will eventually be overridden in favor of financial gains.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)
At any rate, if you have like two corps with lots of compute, and something goes wrong, you only have to EMP two datacenters.
"But foreign propagandists ..."
"But extremists ..."
"But terrorists ..."
"But child abusers ..."
Taxes may be necessary, though I can't help but feel that there must be a better way that we have not been smart enough to find yet. Conscription... is a fact of war, where many evil things must be done in the name of survival.
Regardless of our views on the ethical validity or societal value of these laws, I think their very existence shows that the government believes it "owns" us in the sense that it can unilaterally deprive us of life, liberty, and property without our consent. I don't see how this is really different in kind from depriving us of the right to make and own certain kinds of hardware. They regulated crypto products as munitions (at least for export) back in the 90s. Perhaps they will do the same for AI products in the future. "Common sense" computer control.