RandomLensman

With plenty of things we do not allow use outside of some regulated environment, nothing new.

Having something that is optically, acustically, and electromagnetically isolated might be a pretty strong sandbox.

No regulations on corporations are enforced? That doesn't seem to be case. Making it about a bigger issue it reduces what pretty vanilla regulation could actually achieve, I think.

Why would those be the ones holding back regulation of AI?

Sorry, but why would it be needed to fix things?

Why would it destroy all large corporations? We regulate a lot about what corporations can or cannot do in a all sorts of ways.

We have all sorts of regulations what corporations can or cannot do, who can run certain businesses, how certain businesses need to operate internally and externally - I don't think corporate power is the issue.

Also, not sure it makes a difference in relation to AI whether one thinks of AI more like corporate or a non-corporate thing to regulate. The basics might stay the same, e.g., who can do what under what procedures.

How about wanting certain risks to not materialize?

I, for example, haven't owned a car in decades, no need or interest.

Size of homes, yes, certainly different, but population density is also different. In super expensive places in Europe you'd pay more for less compared to the US (London comes to mind).

Charity spent - social model is different.

Agree that economic growth matters, though, but I would rather look at less cultural, political or physically linked indicators (e.g., cancer survival rates).

Not so sure about the dynamics when it is a group of people with individual and collective reporting obligations and knowledge isn't just with one individual.

Not sure this is a good analogue as this isn't a situation of running experiments as a company, no?

Hiding things is not necessarily trivial when a lot of processes and controls ars mandated. For starters, could just try to make incidents themselves less likely. Not looking in certain specified ways might also not be an acceptable option, for example.

Why do you think we even have regulations for how to deal with dangerous things then?

RK systems doing RL things?

Airlines cannot try to put systems in place to deal with the issues? This isn't just about individuals but also organisations. You have to believe that organisations would also want to hide things even if mandated and incentivised otherwise.

If you make not reporting potentially worse than reporting, why not?

Also, why would it come down to single persons always? Mandating processes, controls, clearances, etc is also something done in various areas.

You can put incentives in to make sure organizations monitor and report vs trying to hide things.

RL systems doing unexpected things isn't exactly new, so not sure that is then "rogue" if it were a property of the thing itself and not an active decision.

What should I look at for such evidence? If something is highly regulated and controlled then things would be quite different from today, not sure there wouldn't be reports of failures of containment, for example, if they are mandated including any rquired monitoring.

Has stringent regulation on how people can experiment on dangerous pathogens led to an end of monitoring or proactive discovery?

Is the language expression of an LLM reflecting the same states as in a human? If the driving force is RL, what does any of that mean for an internal state of the model?

I think without understanding the internal state, not sure we should take the language and read it as a human.

If the revenue stream weren't that big, would it change the use of land much?

So what characterises the lifestyle you mean that the median US household has but not the median European household?

Plenty of that in Europe - more like there is resistance in some countries against it.

Maybe not. As always, I think it's more complex: It certainly used a lot of funding, not just from and for Germany that wasn't available then for other things; at the same time there was not much defense spending (to go back to the origins of SV) either, there was also a lot of socio-politcal change binding change capacity, and in parts there has been a certain distrust/dislike of information technology in countries like Germany.

Sorry, I just tried to add that post cold war there was substantial rebuilding (again).

Could be shoe-box sized flats or nothing even for any human living at all, for example. The most efficient land use need not be "nice".

It took about 2 trillion and maybe a couple of decades from 1990 onwards.

My concern is that the endpoint of most efficient land use might not be a great one.

If it isn't considering hypothetical land uses than it isn't necessarily always pushing for more efficient use, no?

GDP is flow, there is also stock.

What are examples of things the average European cannot afford?

Look at the huge cost of German reunification from 1990 onwards, for example - "rebuilding" Eastern Europe was a big effort.