Bernie's AI bill proposes to sentence AI developers to 20 years in prison
twitter.com
twitter.com
> the obvious international treaty
That's even easier. We just take the international treaty on cloud computing as a base and...
I can play that game, too.
Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP. It's an extension of the policy that's made us dependent on Chinese labor and manufacturing: win on the economics by any means necessary, wait for the other producers to die, enshittify (extract geopolitical concessions, in this case).
A number of non adequately reliable actors owning "the bomb" and a number of threatened actors increasingly wanting "the bomb". Not really.
A ban on technology results in underground research, migration of intellectuals, monopolies, seething parties...
Or you think that «Advanced AI development» does not imply attempting the achievement of Intelligence?
We don't. The need for Intelligence to fill the scarcity is unthinkable. The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented. To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example. To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity.
What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing.
I just wanna say, I really admire the irony of this sentence. Maybe once we invent superintelligence it will be able to think enough to tell us how badly we needed it before we had it.
> The urgency is the highest, especially ever since simil-intelligence (LLMs) was implemented.
It isn't. If we stopped all work on LLMs and AI we'd be more than OK. There's no imminent danger or threat.
> To research Intelligence "safely" you simply do not give it agency (you do not let it control computers), for example.
Something can't both be smarter than us and completely controllable by us. The whole point of inventing superintelligence is so it can do things we can't. Humans can already break out of sandboxes, invent bioweapons, manipulate each other to invent bioweapons, etc. What makes you think superintelligence can't or won't do these things?
> To have "safety" in general, you cannot empower morons - humanity is doing the opposite. We cannot rest with incomplete LLMs, nor we can with this dumb, intrinsically dangerous humanity.
Hey, you're talking to a guy who's got a list of tech to ban: nukes, social media, all forms of video news, etc. What does Taylor Swift say, "I've got a blank space, baby, and I'll write your name (Claude)".
> What does "safely" mean? Getting stuck with this infra-humanity?! That is the radically unsafe thing.
You literally just ban it and turn it off. People are always like "you can't ban it bawwwwwww!" but we ban tech all the time. Try buying a bunch of fertilizer, try buying equipment to research gain of function, try buying anti-aircraft guns, try building fuselages to enrich uranium. LLM research requires extraordinary amounts of hardware, electricity, data, funding, and all the things upstream of that (cooling, shipping, space, financing, etc.) The effort you'd have to go through to do this clandestinely, illegally, while also finding researchers willing to take the risk is all prohibitive. There's a list of all nuclear scientists in the entire world. They have to go to school somewhere. Same for AI researchers. If, say, half a dozen of them suddenly disappear, and a random town in Wyoming suddenly starts making millions of requests per second across the whole internet, guzzling electricity, producing a lot of heat, or ordering a shitload of insulation and ducting, we'll know!
Unthinkable magnitude, I meant.
> no imminent danger or threat
Current technologies are already a danger as agents - they can already do damage - and an unfinished product that cannot be aborted at this stage - Intelligence is not there yet, we have post-Eliza things promising and greatly dumb. We have already started, we have to finish - which is, having the NNs reach a stage of reliability.
> smarter than us and completely controllable by us
Something which is smarter than you should probably even not be controlled by that same "you" that have difficulties controlling a backyard. The concept of «us» there is not consistent with a proper framework.
> who's got a list of tech to ban
I got that suggestion, that it could be your mentality. Banning will not create growth (remember Hegel). Humanity as an aggregate stalls, let us depower aggregate humanity and create further better instruments.
> literally just ban it
And, as I said remain stuck with this trash level infra-humanity. No, very much not.
Get back to the main points:
-- Intelligence is a Value. We are trying to achieve it. That berniesanders fights studying, distilling and augmenting a value. That berniesanders is in that regard a satanist.
-- Humanity as it is has proven very partial value. For which good reason should it be attributed a fair right to protect its perpetration? Are you taking for granted some "right to persist"? To claim a right to existence it should prove goodwill and growth - not the behaviour of an infestant.
-- The real problem is that we have humans and partial unfinished technology in the loop of the progress: both humans (generally speaking) and partial unfinished technology are liabilities. Nonetheless, we cannot stall, so we must proceed.
I'm assuming your bar of success takes in account that 8-9 nation states have nukes. So it follows that 8-9 nation states should have ASI.
Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems.
A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed.
Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matter what kind.
Counting countries is plenty deceptive. Population is the real metric, China, India, Pakistan are all nuclear, everything added together, 50% of the world's population lives in nuke-capable countries. There are US nukes stationed in various European countries and Turkey, I didn't count them although I should have.
> If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
That "achievement" is even more deceptive. The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world, poverty is the real "achiever" here but I don't think that's something worth bragging about.
Are you saying you prefer Pakistan getting nukes over India's population doubling since 1975? That seems silly. Also this is only because of China and India, so this has been true and fine for over half a century.
> The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world
Pakistan is poor, Norway is rich. How can you possibly make this argument?
Is this really how most Americans think?
In fact, nearly everything is perceived as tribalistic us-vs-them team sports now, including politics.
Or, if things go well, ending a long very bad chapter.
There are international agreements on tons of things that work the same way.
Which would be either very difficult or very ironical, given that realizing that humanity is a threat to humanity precedes that.
Question: how aware are they?
Given the missed "intellectual solidity" of the submitted proposal, there is a chance that their effective support to the other party is not conscious.
And in terms of civilization, the confrontation is downgraded to ventral partitism, hysterical: "not like it" vs "really want it or do not mind".
Pausing development means the people with the currently most advanced models are shielded from competition, especially if foreign competition is not allowed.
A new agency will impose heavy regulation which can easily be twisted to favour incumbents.
Speaking of which, doesn’t this bill die after midterms anyway?
So this is just the bonus round where every inane idea gets introduced for the headline before being reset
The bill isn't about using LLMs to merge your pull requests, it's about discouraging people or companies who might be working on their own private Manhattan Projects from intentionally trying to create the impact equivalent of nuclear weapons, or "Artificial Superintelligence".
We're getting closer than not to an A(S)I arms race. Sanders has lived his entire life in that, and I've been smelling it for a while, too.
(Btw, "up to" doesn't mean "to". Second comprehension mistake in a few lines- I bet all current generation of LLMs have better understanding.)
Which is exactly the same as the submission's post, obvious interpretations of "AI" aside: how can we implement Intelligence without enabling superintelligence at the same time?!
And of course we must implement Intelligence, finally: we have implemented further morons, of which we already had plentiful abundance - already the LLM stage must be corrected!
You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», and you were replied that what we are doing in the LLM direction cannot be other than researching ASI. And you were told: and we must, because we cannot be contented with morons.
No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at least for some time. Agreee, disagree, I don't care. It's not proposing to jail people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past. It's proposing to make further research illegal, therefore imposes penalties on those who would illegally pursue it- be they researchers, managers, financers, movie villains, companies, etc.
Or are you complaining against the brevity of the title - knowing that we have to fit the title into a short space?
There are really no possible misunderstandings in the submission.
Obviously it's not the intent of the bill to jail calculator makers. So the bill should be written to make it clear exactly what it's criminalizing.
Let's just slap 20 years on the scifi grifters too, please.
That would be?