Hacker News Reader

Comment by 4d4m | Hacker News Reader

There is no reason to pause any AI development. Quite honestly there is very little appetite to be left last.

However, there is a reasonable ask from the public to hold real people accountable for actions downstream of the software allowed to carry out intendended and unintended actions that may not be allowed depending on jurisdictions laws.

Eg in a hypothetical armed convenience store theft: We don't prosecute the gun manufacturer, we prosecute the individual using the weapon for crime. Same deal here.

View on HN

>There is no reason to pause any AI development. Quite honestly there is very little appetite to be left last.

"According to survey results released on Wednesday, 68% of [likely US voters] said they would support the proposal to temporarily pause advanced AI development and permanently prohibit the development of superintelligent programs, while just 25% said they’d oppose it."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-casar-ai-bill-poll

>Eg in a hypothetical armed convenience store theft: We don't prosecute the gun manufacturer, we prosecute the individual using the weapon for crime. Same deal here.

So if I ask ChatGPT to make me some paperclips, and it replaces all the matter in a nearby city with paperclips, who gets prosecuted: me, or OpenAI?

In this stretch of a hypothetical, you the user

Well in that case, OpenAI has reduced incentive to solve the alignment problem, since it won't suffer liability from alignment failures.

Also the policy makers that made infrastructure and laws susceptible to automated manipulation which decidedly is not the case today. For example LLMs are not able to manipulate the power grid because they are not exposed to the control interfaces..no matter how intelligent llms get their physical levers do not extend unless people decide to let them. The ai threat is real ridiculous.. yes you may ee ome uplift in bad actor. Like for example f someone wants to build a tank dozer in their garage and is not experienced welding ai might give some useful information as a book would in the past. However just like a book ai is bot going to build and operate it itself unless someone design and effective android robot. Once LLMs or other ai becomes an embodies agent then there may be a real threat if agency. Last time I checked ai can't drive a car but it can tell you to walk your car to a car wash.

> The ai threat is real ridiculous

It is an elaborate business ploy to create a regulatory framework for "safe-ai" that shields these companies from liability. This way, they can sell "safe-ai" to enterprises and if shit-hits-the-fan at the enterprise, sorry, this is certified "safe-ai" so, your bad. Shift blame to a regulatory body. From an enterprise buyer's perspective they can say, hey, I bought "safe-ai" and so dont fire me when it "rm -rfs" the production database. Still, beats me why they are painting their product in a negative light, and scaring their own enterprise customers. After this sort of marketing, any enterprise buyer would be scared to go anywhere near it.

This policy only makes sense if legislative action is effective against orgs outside the US. Otherwise it's not even worthless, it's worse. It moved more development outside the grasp of regulation.

if these models will eventually be as powerful as projected, these models should not be likened to guns, but to nukes. Which yes, if you manufacture nukes, we prosecute you

The most commonly accepted expected death toll of global nuclear war is around 50% (mostly from disease and starvation in the ensuing collapse of civilization). That's much better than the expected outcome of recursively self-improving AI (100% dead).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com