Given that "sovereign" these days implicitly means independence from USA and China, and Canada being spiritually in the same boat as the EU, it's pretty spot on?
The costs of "keeping up" aren't really growing, on the contrary.
826 karma · joined October 22, 2022
The costs of "keeping up" aren't really growing, on the contrary.
He does give information, namely the culture there factually being inconducive to self-regulation.
You accuse the guy of "bias", but you never argue explicitly, what that's supposed to mean. Your implications actually run counter to your own implied goals.
The author linked in this post does have "extra credibility" due to his direct involvement.
People having surmised that state before is nice, but since they've been ineffectual at getting society to actually act on that, now throwing away that extra leverage in favor of their point is at best ridiculous.
The main problems with big corp AI are due to control of access in the first place and control of what they output.
When you make your industry reliant on such choke points, you render yourself the opposite of "sovereign" for sure. Having multiple independent suppliers at least mediates that.
AI models act as a force multiplier for intelligence, in particular for generating information according to someone's wishes.
I.e. deepfakes and social media mis-/disinformation campaigns are a thing and having powerful AI allows you to do those at scales that can overwhelm society's resilience.
In general, even if you have "aligned" AI: aligned with whom or what?
Whom are you comfortable with lording as a some demi-god over you, dictating what to believe?
AI is a force multiplier for intelligence. Even if "aligned", aligned with whom or what?
Whom are you comfortable with, lording as some sort of demi-god over you?
AI doesn't tell you what goals you want it to achieve. Allowing people to destroy human society with it is obviously not a good idea.
"Elites" fearing the "plebs" to question them on things they have no good answers for is what constrains active development of actual modern scientific concepts of pedagogy taking hold. You only get to research what is being paid for.
Look at the, pretty obvious, natural human child-mode of learning: playing games.
Just not escapist nonsense games. Games that model relevant aspects of reality in an engaging way. Where you can fail without real-life consequences and learn from it while enjoying yourself.
A "proper" definition represents the objective truth about the matter. You denying such a truth to exist is simply due to you preferring to act unimpeded by it.
Acting against ethical constraints doesn't become OK just because there are no laws to punish you.
Ethics tells you about real-life consequences of your actions on other people. Before any laws take effect.
In effect, you propagate moral relativism. You want to do as you please, because you said so and fancy the spoils at others' expense. People trembling before your "might".
If your supposed dogs are really gods, you reintroduced slavery under very unwise circumstances.
Discernment is needed beyond succumbing to blind greed or irrational fear.
Sentience, self-awareness, consciousness, etc.,those are terms signifying a bridge between "technical" information theory and the psychological and social realms.
Those are just as real, only far less predictable and not as easy as programming.
They're also far more important and consequential.
What AI do you expect to be more uncontrollable: one with or without sentience?
"Intrinsic" safety means control, means understanding. You need to truly understand and be able to predict the system in order to control it.
A proper definition of sentience would help.
Deterministic systems can be chaotic, which implies unpredictability and that is anathema to control.
AI, in particular sentient AI, is right on the border of chaos. Meaning, it can be arbitrarily unpredictable.
Arbitrarily uncontrollable, that is.
The basic services Google provides can effectively only be consumed by humans individually, creating an inevitable bottleneck.
Such bottlenecks impede interchangeability of goods, as you can't reasonably entertain multiple suppliers simultaneously there. And that means, you cannot have a free market, because you can't really have meaningful competition.
Google has captured services that really are public utilities. Them being "new" doesn't play a role.
Pretending, some other company could come stroll along and take over Google's turf, completely ignores the underlying reality.
People don't talk on two phones at once, they only use one search engine regularly and they even only use one browser to surf the internet.
That bottleneck leads to market capture due to inevitable logical reasons, not because I say so.
If you want autonomous states, each one has to control their own infrastructure. Just don't forget to question your assumptions.
(Long) distance communications, just like public roads, breathable air, potable drinking water and so on do not fit into a "free market economy" paradigm.
They simply don't fulfill the basic requirements that make the "market" idea work.
Specifically, a free market needs goods from different suppliers to be easily interchangeable. You cannot sensibly build multiple roads parallel to each other, or have multiple water pipes installed and you have only one airway to breath through.
When you already know that system well, those effects are often just a matter of simple inference.
Just like here: most people are actually perfectly capable to foresee the detrimental effects of abandoning understanding.
Living in a fantasy world of "magic" makes you dependent upon your caretakers, who provide the ingredients.
People succumb to defeatism and acquiesce to regressing to zoo animals, with AI as their caretakers.
They simply cannot help but to apply the economic gauge of short term profits to value the alternatives.
Even though, obviously, here long term human survival and living conditions are at stake, necessitating an entirely different set of considerations.
You observe others behaving poorly and immediately succumb to defeatism, assuming there was no better way.
When presuming, all that matters was the short term economic profit, you simply use the wrong gauge.
Here, long term human survival is at stake, regressing to zoo animals isn't a sensible option.
You here make another one by pretending, AI was just some random tool, like a screwdriver or a programming language.
AI can make decisions autonomously that would otherwise require a human. Like selecting people to be murdered by drone strike based on arbitrary criteria. A programming language by itself, JAVA, cannot do that.
A couple hours at least, would be my guess.
When you have severe memory impairments, those usually affect your long-term memory. Your ultra-short term (working) memory being absent renders you unconscious.
When you revert to withholding human rights from entities that don't meaningfully differ from yourself, you negate the case for your own human rights itself.
The reason is something akin to "stigma", where people refrain from attempting it because they fear the social repercussions.
Normally, you go about defining concepts by approaching it systematically. Capturing aspects of the phenomenon until you have exhausted them all.
Maybe that's not as common with HN folks, but most other humans do.
When it is conscious, it can learn to describe its experiences as faithfully as is conceptually possible. Just like humans.
The idea, a consciousness needed to be tethered to a "body", is based on pretty shaky assumptions. What properties define such a "necessary" body?
Can you even "train" a conscious intelligence? To what point until that looses its meaning as the sentience understands and anticipates your objective?
"Alignment" likely is unsolvable programmatically: Conscious intelligence is more powerful than unconscious. How "aligned" are you? Would you want to be? What difference of any relevance is there between you and "artificial" conscious intelligence that allows you to turn them into slaves?
Getting people to agree isn't easy, that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile. There often even isn't any viable alternative to reaching an agreement in social settings.
When your hyper-competitive mode of thinking leads to undesirable consequences, you have to change your mindset. Reality doesn't conform to wishful thinking.
You can and should engage in international regulation, as that is the only way to solve international problems.
The idea, capitalism would somehow lead to an ideal world all by itself is demonstrably wrong.
"Competition" only makes sense within a pre-mediated set of constrains. Rules all competitors agree to.
Workable rules are a difficult problem, that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile to come up with them.