Comment by bleuarff
2 months ago
The necessary IQ for destroying the world is dropping. Op does not say it's low enough today, but that will probably come sometime. Denying the possible harm these tools are capable of doesn't help.
2 months ago
The necessary IQ for destroying the world is dropping. Op does not say it's low enough today, but that will probably come sometime. Denying the possible harm these tools are capable of doesn't help.
It would be much harder to deny it if any of you were capable of describing the risks. The current discussion is a national-scale Handwavium mine.
If these systems allow anyone with an internet access or a few grands to run an open model to obtain the necessary information to e.g. build a bomb, spread an infectious agent, hack water or electrical infrastructures, I think that creates significant threats to the population.
These systems don't enable that. Building a bomb, spreading a bioweapon and hacking water/electrical misconfigurations are all trivially possible without AI. Courtesy to Unibomber, Aum Shinrikyo and the IRGC, respectively, for teaching society this.
In any case, how would AI regulation prevent any of these things? Shouldn't we instead focus on limiting access to bomb/bioweapon precursors and securing vulnerable endpoints, since that is the solution that saves lives regardless of how AI disseminates? Regulating AI is expressly dangerous, if it expands that societal blind spot. It'd be like regulating red mercury.
1 reply →
[dead]