Comment by simianwords

2 days ago

I fully agree and this other side of excessive scepticism people are ruining it for everyone else. They are a big distraction. They keep saying things like:

- Anthropic is just doing this for marketing stunt

- AI is like NFT's

- circular deals

- the bubble will burst anytime soon

- the hype bro's are propping up the stock market so that they can exit quick like grifters

(I just made the last one up to force terminology they use)

This is really distracting because the main problem here is that AI is getting too powerful to be just handed out to normal people like us. If you still believe it is all hype, you are getting distracted from the real problem.

I'm guessing at some point this kind of rhetoric will die away and we focus on real problem

>This is really distracting because the main problem here is that AI is getting too powerful to be just handed out to normal people like us.

We need a Second Amendment for AI: the right to keep and bear strong AI shall not be infringed. This safety handwringing is going to solidify the state's monopolies over its subjec... err citizens.

The state is the farmer, and we are the cows.

  • "We need a Second Amendment for AI: the right to keep and bear strong AI shall not be infringed."

    It is already robustly protected by the first amendment.

    If I had legal possession of the fable source repository, etc., and printed it on paper, it would be legal for me to possess and distribute, discuss, annotate, etc.

  • Safety handwringing?

    Mythos found 1000 zero days in a few weeks - if I had asked your thoughts on this a few years ago, I'm sure it would've been "that is a super-weapon".

    Plus, scaling laws are impossible to deny: More compute = more intelligence.

    AI is going to completely redefine the role of human cognitive ability - if you think this is about "state monopoly", you're really thinking too small.

    • "Mythos found 1000 zero days in a few weeks - if I had asked your thoughts on this a few years ago, I'm sure it would've been "that is a super-weapon"."

      No, my take would have been that a very strong new move had been made in a long-standing, classical arms race.

      Since I rather like stable equilibria in areas like this, my thoughts would have been that white hats need to catch up immediately to reestablish the stalemate ... which was probably the course we were on, prior to today.

    • Yes, I want that 'super weapon' in everyone's hands. Better than the hands of a few. Same thing as literacy. I believe in the power of the do-gooders to overwhelm the do-badders.

      4 replies →

[flagged]

  • it's an explanation, but you have to have tunnel vision to think this is the only explanation.

    I think they truly believe what they say when they say it's a very dangerous piece of tech and from their wargamed scenarios they figured they really need to be first or shit properly hits the fan - and I agree. their need for money assuming scaling trend holds is transient if they're first.