Comment by ryanklee
2 years ago
It really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
2 years ago
It really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
> It really seems beyond dispute that there are certain tools so powerful that we have no choice but to tightly control access.
Beyond dispute? Hardly.
But please do illustrate your point with some details and tell us why you think certain tools are too powerful for everyone to have access to.
Firearms. Biological weapons. Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons. Certain drugs.
I don't know, seems like there's a very long list of stuff we don't want freely circulating.
Machine learning is a general use tool. It's like Socrates decrying writing as harmful (which we only know of because Plato wrote it down).
You cannot use any of those weapons you mention as anything other than weapons. LLMs, diffusion nets, and classification systems have general use: in medicine, in business, in software engineering, in science, in marketing. These machine learning systems are hyper-advanced printing presses. I'm sure many of the world's governments consider that exceedingly dangerous.
Firearms, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, and chemical weapons all have a single use: to kill people or destroy things. Can you put ML components in to weapons systems? Yes. But that is the same as controlling weapons systems with software, and we don't outlaw all software because some of it could be used to control weapons systems.
ML components are software. Advanced software, not even close to "AI" or, since we've lost that term to marketers, AGI. This regulation is like asking the team making a compiler for $language to ensure that the compiler cannot be used to make malicious software. It's silly on the face of it.
Hydrogen bombs, because allowing anyone to raze a city during a temper tantrum is bad.
Regulating AI is not like regulating hydrogen bombs, it’s like regulating nuclear physics.
1 reply →
Thermonuclear weapons are great for excavating large amounts of landmass in quick order. However I would propose that we nonetheless do not make them available to everyone.
Except that, you know, these tools are not exclusively yours to begin with.
Something doesn't have to be mine in order for me to identify that it's in my best interest to prevent someone else from having it and then doing so.
> It really seems beyond dispute
I'd dispute that completely. All innovations humans have created have trended towards zero cost to produce. The cost for many things (such as bioweapons, encryption, etc) has become exponentially cheaper to produce over time.
To tightly control access, one would then need exponentially more control of resources, monitoring & in turn reduction of liberty.
To put it into perspective encryption was once (still might be) considered an "arm", so they attempted to regulate its export.
Try to regulate small arms (AR-15, etc) today and you'll end up getting kits where you can build your own for <$500. If you go after the kits, people will make 3D printed fire arms. Go after the 3D manufacturers and you'll end up with torrents where I can download an arsenal of designs (where we are today). So where are we at now? We're monitoring everyones communication, going through peoples mail, and still it's not stopping anything.
That's how technology works -- progress is inevitable, you cannot regulate information.
This is a strange argument. There is a vast difference between a world where you can buy semi-automatic weapons off a store shelf and one where you have to 3d-print one yourself or get a CNC mill to produce it. The point of regulation is to mitigate damage that comes from unfettered access, no regulation can ever prevent it completely. Of course, the comparison between computer programs and physical weapons is not strong in the first place.
> The point of regulation is to mitigate damage that comes from unfettered access, no regulation can ever prevent it completely.
Except it is unfettered access -- anyone can access it for <$500. If someone wants a gun they need only log online & order a kit or order a 3d printer for $500 plus a pipe. What you're really doing is increasing the cost-of-acquisition in terms of time, but not reducing access. Aka gang member has the same level of access as before.
Take current AI software applications, everyone can access some really powerful AI systems. The cost-of-acquisition is dropping dramatically, so it is becoming more prevalent (i.e. LLMs that are pre-trained can be downloaded). That's not going to change, even with max regulation, I can still download the latest model or build it myself. It's not removing access to people, only possibly increasing cost-of-acquisition.
If we're worried about ACCESS you have to remove peoples ability to share information. Which requires massive surveillance, etc.
1 reply →
Access control doesn't guarantee the prevention of acquisition, but it's a method of regulation. In combination with other methods, it's an effective way of reshaping norms. This is true both on a level of populations but also of on international behaviors.