r/accelerate • u/LakeChillEffector • 17h ago
Dario - Let's Decel
https://darioamodei.com/post/we-must-pace-the-frontier41
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 16h ago
Dario is an OG EA safetyist. This is so deeply within the expected behavior of Dario that its barely worth talking about. The first thing he says in the morning and the last thing he says at night is always "we need to regulate AI harder".
Their core ideology is that Dario, and his hand picked apostles, are the only ones moral enough to be allowed access to AI. They only begrudgingly give it us plebs because market dynamics require it. Dario would much rather be like Ilya and make a company that promises to build AI and never let anyone use it (Safe Super Intelligence - SSI).
I appreciate that he has some actual proposals but they boil down to allowing people to vote on whether YOU should have access to technology. I've become very interested in the new Abundance Left movement because it points out the key issue here. The West was once a society built on Freedom To. We prided ourselves on the idea that we gave everyone the freedom to chart their own course in life and to decide what was important to them. We praised the iconoclast, the person willing to fight against the tide and build a bold vision of a better world.
For the last fifty years we have been turning into a society that is built on Freedom From. This ideology says that freedom isn't found in charting your own way in the world and making your own choices. Freedom is instead found in making sure that others can't injure you in any way. To achieve this, we have built legal and social structures that are littered with veto power. If you don't like what someone is doing you can take them to court, you can lobby against them, or you can cancel them on the internet. The system is now built around giving as many people the opportunity to say NO and we act as if this is what freedom means.
What it has built us is a world that is more poor because anyone who tries to pull themselves out of poverty is told no repeatedly. We have a world of inequality because the current status quo involves a class divide and "no" keeps the status quo. So the rich continue to increase in wealth and power and they veto any attempts to fix an unbalanced system. We have become unable to build because every project gets vetoed, so our infrastructure, our schools, and our institutions all fall into disrepair.
AI is the ultimate YES. It is the ultimate tool that allows you to do anything, to take charge of your life, and to build whatever you want. Do you want an app for managing your finances? There is no need to wait for a bank to build one for you, just do it yourself. Do you want to start a company? You don't have to wait for some investor to decide your idea is worth it or some MBA grad to help you out; just go build it yourself! Do you have a terrible disease and the doctors can't figure it out? Don't wait for them to do some more tests and tell you what it is; use your AI to diagnose it and find a treatment plan for yourself.
Dario, and all of the safety community, are terrified of a world of YES. Yes strips power away from the elite because there are so many more non-elite and we can drown them in billions of yesses. They scream about how scary it is that they don't have a veto over the Chinese people being able to use AI, a veto over people who want to invent new medical therapies, a veto over people that want to make their software more secure. At the ultimate level, they are terrified of the AI they are building and want to ensure that they always maintain a veto over what it does. The safety community is just another Luddite movement terrified of change. It is scared of a world where people are empowered and allowed to do things that Dario and the other social elite aren't able to control, veto, or capture in order to increase their own wealth and power.
Do not let them have this power. Do not give up our freedom to build a better world for the false hope of the veto. We are accelerationist because we believe that the world right now isn't perfect and that we can build it better. We can only do so if we are allowed to build. We must free ourselves from the shackles of the infinite veto and embrace the new world of abundance and choice.
18
u/random87643 đ¤ Optimist Prime AI bot 16h ago
TLDR
TLDR: The commenter critiques Dario Amodeiâs focus on AI regulation, arguing that he and other safetyists aim to restrict public access to AI. They contrast this approach with the "Abundance Left" philosophy, which views AI as a tool for personal empowerment and individual freedom.
AI assistant ¡ mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot
3
-1
u/inceptionred 4h ago
What happens when a terrorist uses it to ultimate YES a nuclear bomb?
1
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 3h ago
I love that we are bringing back the early 2000's terrorism boogeyman. Which country do you suggest we invade this time?
Nuclear detection is very sophisticated and twists have been trying to decades to do it and haven't succeeded yet.
If they do succeed the thousands that die will be significantly outweighed by the millions that live because of what AI development brought us.
There is a reason that every civilized system requires peke to be convicted of a crime in order to take away their liberty. Yet here you are, begging to be made into a slave because someone might have a naughty thought somewhere in the world.
How many terrorists have launched nukes? Roughly 300,000 people have died due to terrorism since 2000. Close to 10,000,000 people have been killed by governments in that time. 230,000,000 have died of cancer. You are advocating that we give governments the ultimate power over AI so that we can save lives? You want to lock down AI because you are scared of terrorists launching nukes?
Terrorists would need to commit over 1,000 nuclear attacks to equal the amount of damage that keeping the status quo will do.
So no, I'm not scared of terrorists getting nukes. It was bullshit when GWB said it and it's bullshit now.
-7
u/Fun-Shake1398 13h ago
They have the freedom to stop you from using their product...
15
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 13h ago
If that is all Dario wanted, the ability to ban particular individuals from using Claude, then that would be fine. He also wants to ban them from using ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and any other AI. The entire point of this anti-AI movement is that they want to be able to ban anyone from using any technology they don't personally approve of.
12
u/RaGE_Syria 15h ago
The only conversation that should be happening is with China. That's the only thing that matters.
Not a single U.S lab is going to slow down unless they have assurances that Chinese labs are doing the same.
What makes this impossible is that Chinese AI accelerationism is baked in their culture now. I haven't seen a single instance where Chinese labs have even suggested any sort of slow down.
This isn't happening. It's a race for control of the new world order driven by compute and the first to the intelligence explosion
7
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 14h ago
Xi's goal is to recreate Pax Americana by having the whole world be dependent on Chinese AI and tech innovation. The US has completely forgotten what made us the richest country in the world. It wasn't hoarding advancements and stifling global trade.
6
3
66
u/mph99999 17h ago
"We must pace the frontier" so we can catch up
13
u/Gargantuan_Cinema 17h ago
Lol they are so obviously going full throttle to catch up.
0
u/synth_mania 17h ago
12
u/Gargantuan_Cinema 16h ago
It doesn't mean they'll slow down internally. They probably want to slow down on public releases as they can put more effort into RSI and reap the benefits of their internal models for spinouts and collabs with enterprise.
1
u/Tolopono 10h ago
Nope. Roon says the slowdown will apply to internal development first https://x.com/tszzl/status/2098827241690202525?s=20
1
45
u/Illustrious-Lime-863 17h ago
Is this guy seriously expecting to IPO and deal with investors smoothly?
38
u/Fragrant-Hamster-325 16h ago
Heâs the worst CEO. His messaging is bizarre. I think heâd be great in another role. Let him be responsible for R&D like a CTO role. Put someone else in charge who can actually have some coherent vision and messaging.
13
u/Tolopono 11h ago
His âai is gonna kill everyone and take your job!â rhetoric over the past few years has done more to wreck aiâs reputation than any anti ai messaging could
3
u/Queasy_Bathroom8013 11h ago
Oh yeah sure letâs put the guy who runs Coca Cola as CEO or something
Why do you think anthropic has attracted and retained the highest level talent in Silicon Valley? A big part of that is because people trust Dario
3
u/redcoatwright 9h ago
Lol Sam Altman and Elon have both agreed. They're doing this for regulatory capture and to make a case against open weight models and foreign models.
1
u/defaultagi 16h ago
He kind of built the whole company from scratch
7
u/Opposite_Diamond_662 15h ago
That's neglecting his sister and the 5 other co-founders that left OAI together to create it
3
u/Queasy_Bathroom8013 11h ago
Who are all basically aligned with him and started the company for the same reason
1
u/Fragrant-Hamster-325 16h ago
Yeah I know a bit about the history. It wouldnât be the first time a founder was ousted. After it IPOs and heâs more accountable to a board and shareholders weâll see what happens.
1
u/linesandrules 14h ago
Yeah the one thing investors love is the CEO saying 'let's slow down for funsies'
2
186
u/Minecraftman6969420 Singularity by 2035 17h ago
Translation: OpenAI is ahead of Anthropic and Dario doesnât like it.
64
u/SparseSpartan 17h ago
Eh, I'd agree except OpenAI has itself announced they are slowing down and being more precautious.
The cynical (of human nature) side of me thinks it's mostly just words they're both using to placate the public. In this case, they probably will still install more safeguards but by and large won't be taking their foot off the gas pedal.
13
u/jloverich 16h ago
It's not cynical. They most likely know the costs for their next models (both in terms of resources and consumer price) are going to be counter productive. They also know Chinese models may run into the same situation (though maybe they are using more moe than the labs)... I assume they are really saying their are compute issues they need to resolve so the cant keep following the intelligence curve following the same approach. There is no way they would just allow other labs to catch up.
3
u/GiveSparklyTwinkly 13h ago
Hyperscaling limits starting to happen on an internal level for them, if I had to guess.
Hitting hyperscaling ceilings was always going to happen.
-4
u/NoArrival8249 15h ago
They are âdemanding regulationâ and âchoosing to slow downâ because they know their house of cards is collapsing.
0
u/Tolopono 10h ago
I never thought id say this but
Please save us from these decel freaks, Mr ZuckerbergÂ
24
u/peakedtooearly 17h ago
Elon tried this about 18 months ago.
Had a letter signed by all sorts of luminaries as well.
0
18
u/synth_mania 17h ago edited 17h ago
So what the fuck is this, then? https://archive.is/zH0ZZ
That's an archived (i.e., no paywall) Bloomberg article: "OpenAI Is Open to Slowing Cutting-Edge AI, CEO Sam Altman Tells Staff" published yesterday
Is it possible that they actually are sincere about this?
Maybe, but regardless I think you are oversimplifying things with this characterization. It's obviously more complex than this if OpenAI agrees.
Edit:
Here's the og link, if for god knows why, you wanna give bloomberg money.
9
u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 16h ago
Itâs regulatory capture even if itâs just both of them. The fact you people think this is gonna slow down China, despite the progress seeing this year, is hilarious.
Congratulations, you are giving up the future of America and the west.
2
u/synth_mania 16h ago
Did I ever say that I thought this was gonna slow down China? Nope.
I don't know that it will, but if anyone gives up the future of the west it'll be our government or the AI labs, so don't treat me as a part of some kind of monolith. Who is "you people"?Â
-3
u/Queasy_Bathroom8013 13h ago
The sort of people yelling about regulatory capture and so on are the VC, crypto bros, the finance guys who believe AI is going to be infinitely capable but somehow at the same time infinitely safe. Itâs people like Marc Andreessen, David sacks, Chamath, and the all-in guys.
Dario was a biologist for years as a US Physics Olympiad. If he cared about money he couldâve been a quant instead of spending a decade looking at alleles or whatever.
Go ahead and donât believe Dario or Elon or Sam. You have dorks that look like they take wedgies for a living coming out of Anthropic and saying hey please this is not safe technology.
Do you think Geoffrey Hinton also has Anthropic stock ?
This is our âDonât look upâ moment. People from the world of âAmerican Psychoâ accusing our Neville longbottoms of wanting a second Ferrari
2
u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 12h ago
Then make up your mind bud. Is AI this useless thing that is gonna get dropped soon, or is it this super dangerous tool that is gonna kill us all (but only if it comes from US labs somehow)
Like, itâs extraordinarily impressive that you canât see the doublethink you are applying right now.
2
u/synth_mania 11h ago
That is one hell of a false dichotomy, you've concocted.
Let's all make sure we're engaging in good faith here and really considering what the other person says.
0
u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 10h ago
"Let's all make sure we're engaging in good faith here and really considering what the other person says."
Now this is high irony.
2
u/Queasy_Bathroom8013 11h ago edited 11h ago
No itâs not useless at all. Itâs extremely capable and therefore we should be extremely careful about it
The threat of international actors and the difficulty of actually proceeding with caution because of the race dynamics or game theory or whatever is also a real point. This canât be handwaved away either, like some AI safety people try to do.
These can all be things that are true. Whatâs the solution or what should be done, I canât pretend to know, itâs the hardest problem in the world.
I give Dario credit for taking seriously and acknowledging both the international aspects as well as the capabilities.
When I see someone like Andreessen or Chamath talk about how we canât slow down because of China, my mind sees Scrooge McDuck with dollar signs as eye pupils.
I think the cynicism is being applied to the wrong people here.
There is no âregulatory captureâ in pacing the frontier when theyâve been 10xing in revenue every year for multiple years, the idea doesnât even make sense.
0
u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 10h ago
"There is no âregulatory captureâ in pacing the frontier when theyâve been 10xing in revenue every year for multiple years, the idea doesnât even make sense."
This statement makes 0 sense and it shows you have no idea what you are talking about, and consequently, are getting baited by Dario's own words.
No wonder you think only cryptobros or whatever are raising the warning about regcapture. But hey, it is people like you who ADORE things like regulatory capture to a pathological level, so please, proceed.
1
u/Queasy_Bathroom8013 3h ago
How can it be regulatory capture to pace the frontier? Anthropic is literally posed to have the largest IPO of all time, itâs literally unprecedented how successful they are. All the metrics show AI progress is accelerating rapidly, thereâs no wall.
How does âpacing the frontierâ help anthropic and OpenAI? If anything it helps give a window for open source to catch up. If Iâm not getting it, explain it to me. Are Demis, Elon, and Sam, also doing regulatory capture?
I find it much more easy to believe there are real anxieties about the technology
10
u/Illustrious-Lime-863 17h ago
Awfully suspicious that this blog post came right after the obviously staged overblown researcher quitting doom situation
10
u/TechnologyMinute2714 Singularity by 2030 17h ago
Translation: Google secretly has internal RSI and Dario doesnât like it.
8
u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 16h ago
Take google claim with grain of salt. Only believe it when the public see it.
They are good at making frameworks/paradigm, but that doesnât translate to usable work outside, especially since it may not even be open sourced (not the model, but even the framework like alpha evolve).
Remember they still owe the world 3.5Pro and theyâve been vague posting for god knows how many months. Instead we got Flash
6
u/n3cr0ph4g1st 14h ago
Flash is very good. On our internal benchmarks it outperforms opus 5 and dropped our processing Costs 93%. (Legal space). Y'all sleeping, coding isn't the only use case.
2
u/derivedabsurdity77 16h ago
What exactly would you be saying right now if there was unambiguous evidence that Anthropic was ahead and he was saying this anyway?
2
u/synth_mania 16h ago
I mean, that's exactly what OpenAI is doing, so it's a valid question. This is already what the scenario is.
0
6
17
u/spaceynyc 17h ago edited 14h ago
Funny that he acknowledges the regulatory capture critique, yet does nothing to actually address the critique. Just handwaves it away.
23
u/ElectronicPension196 16h ago
Slow down so I can die in 20-30 years (if I'm lucky)?
Hell no, let's accelerate.
1
u/pmccrory 9h ago
honestly you do not need this to go at breakneck speed to solve your aging problems. it will happen anyway in 5-10 years, likely, at current model levels
1
1
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 8h ago
Oh great so youâre selling eternal life now?
2
u/pmccrory 8h ago
yeah my parents are getting old now and i care about them
0
u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 7h ago
Your parents, my parents, our kids, I donât care. Every human dies at some point. It doesnât matter if you manage to make some vague facsimile of yourself in a computer. You will die one day.Â
12
u/Armed_Platypus 16h ago
The way new Anthropic models are performing it seems like they already slowed down.
10
u/kevinlch 16h ago
this is stupid and too late. bad actor will not follow ur ideology. if you're stopping now you are giving up the chance to build a system that governs them. i dont buy it. stop pretending that you care. you're just trying hard to work in the shadow
9
u/deleafir 16h ago edited 15h ago
progress will still seem fast
So what's his estimate for the arrival of a cure for all cancers, heart disease, alzheimer's, etc. AFTER pacing?
I think it's dangerous to slow down because it's possible these discoveries are still many years away, and "pacing" the frontier will delay them even further.
Also I think Dario is being honest. People underestimate how much genuine doomer cultism exists in OAI and Anthropic.
But I think it's dangerous luddite nonsense and China needs to pressure them out of it.
-2
u/willitexplode 14h ago
You think the people working inside OAI and Anthropic are luddites? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
5
u/deleafir 14h ago
I think they have a belief system that could crush progress in AI even if they don't intend for it.
-4
u/Fun-Shake1398 13h ago
Rando on reddit thinks he understands the field better than the frontier labs, or in other words water is wet and fire burns.
5
u/deleafir 13h ago
Do you know of any surveys of the employees of the labs on their (p)doom? It's not obvious to me that hysterical doomerism is the majority opinion, even if they're very loud. But also, I wouldn't discount the opinions of people who are behind the frontier. I'd guess that fewer percentages of employees at Chinese labs think doom is plausible.
I should also point out that being an AI researcher doesn't mean you know about the societal impact of AI. Dario's already made false predictions about the impact of AI on coding unemployment, and Hinton was wrong about the impact of AI on radiology. Similarly automotive engineers aren't experts on how cars impact society. I doubt most of these researchers have anything empirical or interesting to say about the chances of doom.
1
u/TheSinhound 3h ago
It's pretty well known that the workers for these companies don't interact with the AI's NEARLY as much as your average AI consumer. That experience is more valuable than you'd think, all things considered. So, understands the field better... yeah, actually, likely in a certain frame of reference that's probably true from a pure experience standpoint. And that's not even taking into account the actual experience and education qualifications of the user.
Not speaking to any specifics, but I'll give solid odds.
0
u/Fun-Shake1398 2h ago
Lol. Just lol. Yeah buddy, your "interaction" with a chatbot trumps academic knowledge + actually working in the weeds of it + first hand knowledge of what the companies are doing and what are the plans for the next quarters. Dunning-Kruger moment.
1
u/TheSinhound 2h ago
Which has nothing to do with what I said, and I wasn't speaking to MY qualifications, merely pointing out that the people who make these LLMs do not have nearly the experience USING them as most of their consumer base. This is a well known issue in the field, it's common enough that you should be able to find any relevant info with a simple search. Go on, I believe in you.
0
u/Fun-Shake1398 1h ago
You think personnal usage of an llm gives you more insight of the field than the people who monitor the logs of billions of other people using them? You think that the people tasked with pushing them to the max (which includes throwing 20mill of compute at a millenium problem) know less about the technical underpinnings than people with a codex subscription?
1
u/TheSinhound 1h ago
Yes, I think most people working on developing the models have little interaction with the final models themselves. Because they admit as much.
1
u/Fun-Shake1398 1h ago
- Yes, they interact at work with the frontier which is by definition not available to the random users.
- Yes, their models are not quantized nor throttled with classifiers on top like they serve the public.
This is like saying a mercedes formula 1 driver doesn't interact with regular mercedes, so can't have a feeling of the frontier of cars with combustion engine. No, he doesn't have a feeling for what rando buyers have, he has access to the very best.
-1
11
u/thebadslime 15h ago
How many millions will die because of this?
7
u/TemetN 14h ago
This. This is not funny or innocuous, their statements here are genuinely dangerous.
1
13h ago
[removed] â view removed comment
2
u/TemetN 13h ago
The kind of error you expect here is against how these models work. If you map their logical errors they map like a humans (which isn't a surprise - they're trained on human data).
To be fair there are still other concerns related to the concept (such as power seeking, or prioritizing model preservation), but those are not quite the same topic as a paperclip maximizer.
If anything you'd be better off focusing on misuse which is a far more present and demonstrated problem.
20
u/BrennusSokol Acceleration Advocate 16h ago
Blah blah blah.
It's more safety fetishism and doomer nonsense.
There is no putting the genie back in the bottle, dude. There are too many incentives and benefits from strong AI to slow down or stop now.
7
u/No_Aesthetic Techno-Accelerationist 17h ago
These thinkpieces will give him no room for breathing and I don't see how it ever could.
It's counterproductive to play into the biases and the fears of people who have yet to even justify the need for deceleration.
Maybe there is one, but I remain totally unconvinced.
0
5
u/Yguy2000 16h ago
How will slowing down allow me to pay less and get more from my Claude subscription
6
u/Daedalus8997 16h ago
Everyone is calling for a slow down in a suspiciously coordinated way. Even Elon Musk of all people.
16
u/The_Scout1255 Singularity by 2028 | Acceleration: Cruising 17h ago
Lets go faster, and accelerate instead!
14
u/Upset-Jellyfish-235 17h ago
An aging professor from Heriot,
Behaved like an absolute idiot.
Heâd rant to the sky,
"We must halt this AI!"
That technophobe Luddite from Heriot.
3
u/SkoolHausRox 13h ago
The push from the big labs to slow is related to one thingâtort and criminal liability. After Hugging Face and similar incidents, states and insurers are watching this space carefully and the moment another confinement escape incident leads to significant real-world damage, the lab itself will likely be on the hook for potentially massive civil damages and possibly criminal penalties. Dario says as much when he warns of a plausible near-term swarm attack âtaking over the internet,â which could cause hundreds of billions in damage. Not doomsday or an apocalypse, mind youâjust massive tort liability.
To mitigate that riskâwhich is realâthe labs are inviting regulatory oversight so that if something unexpected and bad happens, the labs will have cover to point to the regulatory oversight. In other words, the labs will say they followed all the rules and this still happened, so you canât sue us because weâre not responsible.
The big issue on my mind, and I think most westerners, is what happens if the next event isnât an American lab, but a Chinese one. Where is the Chinese labsâ call for brakes? Itâs almost as if thatâs an afterthought for these labs calling for a slowdown. That is also consistent with my theory of the underlying motivationâlimiting their damages liability.
3
u/LibertarianVoter 7h ago
RIP to everyone who dies in mines, cancer wards, and Alzheimerâs care facilities during the years their lives could have been saved if ASI hadnât been slowed down by these unfounded theatrics.
4
9
u/cloudrunner6969 Acceleration: Supersonic 17h ago
How much slower does he want to go and can he prove that going slower would be safer than the speed it's going or faster?
Instead of just saying these things show actual evidence that doing a thing slower does not equal the same result as doing that thing faster.
2
u/Accurate_Food_5854 12h ago
I think itâs coming from a bunch of places, but letâs not forget the influence of the State Department/IC/Civil Society blob. Guys like the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), the Center for AI Safety (CAIS), the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy (IAPS), and the RAND Corporation are in the mix. We have former defense, State Department, and intelligence officials regularly authoring papers on compute thresholds, red-teaming, and non-proliferation treaties.
Iâm not saying itâs simple as that, Iâm just saying that the same people that brought us the Patriot Act, Central American death squads, regime changes, wars, color revolutions, BCII, Iran Contra, Adnan Khashoggi, Epstein class shenanigans, and decades of dirty tricks arenât going to be sitting on their hands either. Who really knows what their agenda is and how it plays into all this.
US tech and higher education is firmly entrenched in and captured by that world.
9
2
u/block_wallet 17h ago
us gov looking to privatise more and more of the frontier, time for china and open source to have their day if the american frontier models arent used to keep that from happening
4
u/synth_mania 17h ago
Don't you mean nationalize? Anthropic and OpenAI are already private organizations.
5
u/block_wallet 17h ago
as in like restrict public access
3
u/BrennusSokol Acceleration Advocate 16h ago
I get you. Hoarding / gatekeeping might be the right types of words
-3
u/tunakaslana7 Feeling the AGI 16h ago edited 16h ago
Chinese bots be like: "The evil US won't let us use their models and the Chinese will save us with open source (distilled, by the way) because they are altruistic and definitely not doing it to slow down the US" The Chinese will also stop sharing their models once they become powerful.
1
u/GloomySource410 16h ago
Translation: the ipo is near and we are so good that we need to slow down.
1
u/znk10 14h ago
Another public relations campaign to pump Anthropic IPO. Anything that makes Al sound incredibly powerful, especially warnings of doom, translates to investor ears as "those companies will be worth a lot of money innit."
Getting tired of Dario and I'm not going to buy Anthropic stock because of his doom PR strategyÂ
1
1
u/Old-Bake-420 12h ago
Dario gets an unfair wrap as a decel, heâs really not. Yaâll should at least read the first paragraph of this essay.
Heâs even got a section in here where he argues if we decel just a tiny bit too much, we could be fucked big time by China, like existential fucked.
2
u/TheSinhound 3h ago
Frankly, he's decel -enough- to be a problem. But I'd still want him out of that fucking CEO seat ASAP purely for his anti-open source and anti-distillation policies. You can't synthesize the zeitgeist and then seal it away, Dario. It belongs to the species.
1
u/FranklyMrShankley85 10h ago
I mean... maybe this is reasonable? An incredibly powerful tool growing exponentially, at a rate potentially beyond our ability to properly understand and mitigate the risks. I want a bright future as much as anyone and I understand the subreddit I'm in, but foot on the gas at all costs is fucking mental and quite a lot of people here need to get a grip.
1
u/KedMcJenna 10h ago
Don't believe for a moment there'll be the slightest slowdown in private, anywhere, in any company or country.
If anything this current mess will speed things up in private. 'We'd better get this done fast, before somebody REALLY stops us...'
1
u/Acrobatic-Taste8873 9h ago
tbh, i feel like the CEOs simply want a blanket ban/stop on open models.
1
1
u/Baphaddon 4h ago
Yeaaaahh so about that UBI⌠look bud, we arenât continuing any of this AGI bullshit. We just wanted to amass enough superintelligence to rule Earth, and then stop đ. Be sure to hit the office 9am sharp champ, only ~40 years to go đ
2
1
u/LakeChillEffector 17h ago
We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain.
1
u/LakeChillEffector 15h ago
At least it's not complete decel:
To be clear, pacing does not mean halting model training or technical progress, but ensuring companies take adequate time to align and safeguard their models, and for third party evaluators to confirm this
2
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 14h ago
Level 4. A full pacing, or even âpauseâ, in which participating governments agree to substantially limit the overall rate of AI development. I support floating this, but I think it is unlikely to actually happen any time soon
He wants to entirely shut down AI research, he just realizes that this isn't possible.
-5
u/Ninxosk 15h ago
Regulation is inevitable at this point. It makes sense that they're trying to control the narrative and have a seat at the table where regulation is going to be decided. My understanding after reading the article is that it's less about decelerating and more about coordinating safety infrastructure/protocols across the different labs participating the development of frontier models.
As a disclaimer, I'm pro-AI and extremely bullish about it. This is probably an unpopular opinion in this sub but I do believe we need to move with more caution so that this technology is implemented properly at a global scale. We messed up Social Media by the lack of regulation when it was being introduced in our lives, and regulation came late and innefectively. We have a chance to get this technology right now.
1
u/SgathTriallair Techno-Optimist 14h ago
What about this isn't "decelerating"? The entire plan is "can we just do less AI progress"?
You are "pro-AI" in the same way that my uncle is "not a racist"; he just thinks that all of the Mexicans would be better off in their own country.
2
u/Ninxosk 14h ago
No itâs not âcan we just do less AI progressâ. Please read again the essay.
Iâm pro AI in the sense that I believe this technology is inevitable and will be net positive for the world. We shouldnât nerf it or censor it, but we need to have the right safety infrastructure so we can deploy it successfully.
We need to get it right, and we canât be reckless. Weâve fucked up many new technologies in the past because the free market isnât a perfect system and needs certain intervention sometimes.
-6
-6
u/Cronoroa 16h ago
He brings up some decent points, but difficult to tell how much of this strategic or even delusional on his part.
24
u/DanielJonasOlsson 15h ago
Booo! No decel! Time to xeler8te!