pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 18h \ parent \ on: The Problem — Eliezer Yudkowsky et al AI
I agree with you, although the counter argument might be our (relative) success with nuclear weapons. It's highly regulated and has the capacity to cause human extinction -- and yet we haven't blown ourselves up yet. We haven't even had a one-off somebody went nuts and detonated a nuke incident. How are we to understand this success?
As far as AI, isn't the greater concern that it's not "nuclear" tech, it's not on the trajectory to becoming capable of wiping out humanity, and therefore regulation will merely limit/distort the benefits we might achieve from using it?
I'm going to be confrontational about the counterargument, apologies if it's offensive, I don't want it to be but it could be.
our (relative) success with nuclear weapons.
That genie wasn't out of the box yet, 80 years and a few days ago, and it was straight used to wipe out 2 cities, by the authorities. So I do not agree that trusting governments with technology, especially not when reflecting on the history of nuclear weapons, to be a proven method for prevention of loss of human lives. It will just be another genocide if we entrust ever-more-opaque governments operating with increasing uncontrolled power, and being increasingly warmongering or straight out waging or sponsoring total war against civilian populations, to do the right thing.
They won't do the right thing. Maybe they will for you, if they're your government and you're of the right race, gender, wealth and circle of friends. But do we truly believe in the benevolence of the current ruling class? Personally, I haven't seen it.
reply
Yeah, my heart wasn't in the counter argument. I can't help but agree with you. giving governments power over a thing pretty often results in that thing being misused to great harm. What would be the alternative history where nuclear materials are unregulated? (didn't find any part of what you said offensive).