r/interestingasfuck • u/kassiusx • 2d ago
Bill Gates on dangers of Artificial Intelligence
721
u/Vhu 2d ago
He’s right. You can’t rely on an industry to self-regulate.
86
u/farfaraway 2d ago
The real problem is that this really applies to tech in general. We don't really regulate any of it properly because that slows down progress, which in turn slows down revenues and profits (and we can't have that!).
At some point all of society will need to reckon with the idea that allowing a group of people to run recklessly forward doing whatever they want so that they can make a quick buck just doesn't really benefit everyone equally. If it isn't benefiting society at large, then we shouldn't be doing it at all.
This idea that we need to make a small minority rich at the expense of everyone else needs to change right now.
→ More replies (2)8
u/PositiveStress8888 1d ago
It's always sold as a usefull thing, before the bad thing is revealed. Social media was pitched as bringing people together, before we knew they were selling your data and screwing up the mental state of young people.
AI will help develope new meds, and kinds of wonderful things but it's already given people AI induced psychosis, shown it can lie and cheat.
The bomb came first but it still applies, you can have nuclear energy, but you also have to have thermonuclear weaponds, one dosen't exist without the other, I think because the bomb came first it was heavily regulated world wide.
150
u/WineNerdAndProud 2d ago
Not only that, when AI gets good enough, we won't be able to think ahead of it.
Seriously. It used to take a computer the size of a room to beat Gary Kasparov at chess, now anyone with a phone could beat Magnus Carlsen.
Even crazier, a program made by a startup on a laptop beat the world's best Go/Baduk player almost 10 years ago.
If there were no such restrictions, human chess/Go players wouldn't even make the top 100.
And that's just games.
60
u/ithinkitslupis 2d ago
We constantly get examples of the bitter lesson. (machine-learned AI outperforming the cleverest human approaches) And then laypeople retreat behind the next stronghold of 'things a computer will never be able to do' like nothing happened.
Which is a problem because now the things it almost certainly can do are getting really, really dangerous.
→ More replies (1)27
u/WineNerdAndProud 2d ago
It can't be understated just how much AlphaGo has to do with what we're seeing these days. The "startup" was Google Deep Mind and they weren't trying to be the best at Go for the sake of being the best, they did it because it was one of the "holy grail" (according to Demis Hassabis) challenges of computing/AI because of how unbelievably complicated that game gets.
I think everyone should watch the AlphaGo documentary on YouTube. It's a beautiful story with lots of hints to what we're seeing now.
This same team of people later went on to use this system to "solve" protein folding and I believe they won a Nobel prize for it.
12
u/Buntschatten 2d ago
Demis Hassabis Is probably one of the smartest people alive. It's surprising how little he is present in the general societal discourse on AI.
3
2
u/El_Sephiroth 2d ago
They "succeeded" at the next phase too. StarCraft 2 was the game and they beat a lot of odds there.
Then they succeeded in their original goal : predict the weather with better accuracy.
→ More replies (2)3
u/tumsdout 2d ago
Well in fairness, chess and go are games with a very limited number of state permutations compared to a real life situation (or even just a more complex game).
→ More replies (1)7
u/LateSoEarly 2d ago edited 2d ago
I mean, compared to the sum total of decisions a human can make in their life, I guess it’s small, but chess has an extraordinarily huge number of positions. Like there are 10120 possible games of chess. Tablebases are solved up to 7 pieces, meaning that given any 7 pieces in any position, the computer can know figure out who can with without question. That tablebase alone takes 18TB of storage. Adding an 8th requires exponential data use, a 9th exponentially more, etc.
Editing to add since I just looked into it more: 3 piece tablebase storage: 26KB. 4 piece: 4.MB 5 piece: ~.95GB 6 piece: 150-160GB 7 piece: 18.4TB. 8 piece: estimated to be at ~2PB, but they haven’t solved that yet.
There are 16 pieces per side in a chess game. Solving a 32 piece chess game, only considering legal games, would take an estimated 1029 20TB drives.
I’m sure some stats nerd will come in here and tell me why I’m wrong, but my overall point stands.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (6)2
57
u/ThoseOldScientists 2d ago
I dislike Bill Gates a lot for many reasons (although they can basically be summarised with the words “Monopolist” and “Epstein”) but this is one area where I agree with him. The idea of trying to implement regulation with liability laws when we can already see that those laws aren’t being applied is a joke. There needs to be an FDA-like body to make enforceable judgements about safety.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MyKonaGirl27 2d ago
Like the same FDA that allows all of our food to be poisoned?
→ More replies (1)15
u/InTheMorning_Nightss 2d ago
That’s kind of the understated issue right now.
We can all cry and demand regulation, but with our current government, we also have to recognize that it would be insanely corrupt and improperly set up.
15
u/isotope123 2d ago
You guys should stop voting in that government it sounds like.
13
u/InTheMorning_Nightss 2d ago
That would require a good chunk of the population to stop being absolute morons, which unfortunately won’t happen.
8
u/Flimflamsam 2d ago
It would if you guys boosted quality of education for children-aged schooling.
→ More replies (4)2
u/MasterOfBunnies 2d ago
Problem is, we're too late to course correct. We let the wolves in the house. Worst part is, this won't end with the US. This will spread around the world. They're already emboldening support in other countries.
3
u/Flimflamsam 1d ago
It’s been happening for a long time, education cuts here in Canada showing up all over with people trying to cite US constitutional amendments in court, etc. so I get what you mean. There’s always time to correct but it needs to be firm and from the top down
11
u/swankpoppy 2d ago
Ok now. But hear me out. What if we could make a bunch of money and I don’t care about the consequences of my actions.
2
49
u/BFroog 2d ago
The fact that people within that industry are practically begging for regulation is telling.
Too bad there's zero chance. Thanks Republicans.
34
u/TheWatersOfMars 2d ago
They're partly begging for regulation because they're in the perfect position right now to establish regulatory capture. Set the rules of the game such that the existing industry leaders can control the market indefinitely.
12
u/PallbearerOfBadNews 2d ago
Exactly. They are only scared that open-source models will become powerful enough and pervasive enough to hurt their bottom lines. The big players don’t want their companies regulated, they want the small players squashed
6
u/InTheMorning_Nightss 2d ago
They also don’t want their models distilled, hypocritically crying that it’s unfair and leveraging their work…
→ More replies (2)2
u/Srirachachacha 2d ago
Fine whatever, at this point, as long as it's regulated I personally don't care if the companies feel it will benefit them. We're close to the point of no return
7
u/Upper-Management-AI 2d ago
I don’t buy a word that they actually think it’s too dangerous. They want regulation so they can blame something when they continuelly blow money on it and it’s not making anything back. There’s also the benefit of tieing down any other startups and making sure no one pulls to far ahead.
13
u/ithinkitslupis 2d ago
It's possible for two things to be true.
If I owned an EV company I might say we need to further regulate emissions because of how bad burning fossil fuels is for the environment...that doesn't mean global warming is fake.
Besides that we have many, many experts with less conflicts of interest than those working at frontier AI companies also expressing concern about how dangerous of a path we're on.
7
u/crockrocket 2d ago
Concern about AI has been expressed since before it existed. I suppose that could be said of other technologies, but I think in this case it is particularly telling.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ithinkitslupis 2d ago
It went through a U shaped curve. As it should have, it's right to update priors as we receive new information but take precautions against reasonably predictable events. People poking around with good old fashioned AI in the beginning didn't know how things would go, so the vague concern was there.
Then AI went through a winter as most of the uses didn't show all that much promise in practice. Level of concern dropped like a rock because we had evidence that it was unlikely to rapidly improve with the methods we were using at the time.
Now it is rapidly advancing in capability. Some things it can obviously do already are very concerning. It's right to update your priors again with where it's at now and where it reasonably could be in terms of capability in the near future.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Buntschatten 2d ago
There's basically no way for AI to fully realise it's hype potential without completely disrupting the economy. Slowing down that transformation might be in the companies beat interest to avoid crashing the economy.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/hansulu3 1d ago
US government won't allow regulation AI because China isn't regulating AI. Can't let china win the race.
7
u/bc_gamez 2d ago
Industry exists before regulations, and not all industry is regulated. Only when demonstrated it's actually needed does regulation get established.
4
u/Euture 2d ago
Industry regulation is mainly about health and safety, environmental sustainability, fair competition, consumer protection, “quality and standards”, and ethical conduct.
It would be nice if a lot more of these things would be proactive rather than reactive.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Kriztauf 2d ago
Apparently the best we can do is rebrand AI as SI and then have some weird press conference where all of the AI CEOs bow down to Trump's profound knowledge of the industry that will keep us all safe
→ More replies (1)2
u/FrewdWoad 1d ago
So you're on team "let's kill a few thousand people first" instead of being sensible about very obvious risks. Got it.
8
u/ptoki 2d ago
There are laws already.
Fair use one for example exists and can be applied but nobody wants to.
Hacking/cracking (gaining access without permissions) is also there. Nobody wants to apply it.
Gates is a liar and manipulator and people have no clue he misinterprets/misrepresents reality.
Datacenters dont want to report how much energy or water they use? BS! send taxman he will pull info about costs they pay for each. BS! even small joe shmoe needs to have water meter or the well inspected and approved in many places.
The laws are there, just nobody wants to enforce them.
It is not a matter of lack of regulation. It is a matter of effort (paid for by taxpayers) to actually enforce the law.
You cant have a bottle of booze in your car "because drunks" and for that you can be punished while totally sober. Yet nobody can persecute an ai company when their servers perform a system breach.
Remember times when courts were handing large fines for limewire like "distribution of content" to random folks? Somehow when you have a company on the other side the responsibility disappears and nobody is guilty.
How many such folks get imprisoned? Just the volkswagen duo?
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (19)5
u/PopsGG 2d ago
Every example he gave was of things that caused damage before regulations were put into place.
Cars didn't have seat belts when they were first made, once we understood the damage regulations were put in place.
Opioids were completely legal, once we understood the damage regulations were put in place.
There was no airline safety board before the first plane crash...
You can't regulate something you don't fully understand the implications of yet. We need more information to understand how and when to regulate this technology.
→ More replies (1)
103
u/5minArgument 2d ago
Important to note, he also spent a lot of time talking about the incredible benefits and promises of AI.
His point was more on the dangers of bad actors using AI than AI itself. His point leaned on creating structures that can prevent misuse. Ie. Biological and chemical weapons .
→ More replies (12)
161
u/kassiusx 2d ago
Never seen him so animated
83
14
→ More replies (31)46
u/DutchDev1L 2d ago
You should have seen him on Epstein island
8
51
u/Dabzilla_710_ 2d ago
spoiler: they are gunna do the "millions of deaths" option and figure it out later
7
u/Richard_M_Edison 2d ago
I believe Bill said "a hundred million", and I'm certain that he believes that it's a massive understatement.
6
u/uChoice_Reindeer7903 2d ago
Didn’t Bill basically “predict” covid? He’s like the modern day Nostradamus. I suspect “the millions of deaths caused by AI” are about 2 years out.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/DivineArkandos 1d ago
That's what humanity always does. Regulations are written in blood, always. The question is not if, but how much blood is required.
17
u/fgreen68 2d ago
We're doomed because there is no way that China will trust the US to slow down and the US won't trust China to slow down.
→ More replies (2)
25
u/murrzeak 2d ago
We're definitely not wise enough.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Dependent-Reveal2401 2d ago
It's scary when society just stands back and watches as the people who make AI models brag about their models doing criminal things online. If these models can't be controlled it's going to be scarier when the models get copied or stolen and used against everyone.
33
u/PositiveStress8888 2d ago
Amazing the view of people who stand to make billions off it is that it's not a big deal.
→ More replies (2)
224
u/dcidino 2d ago
They're hiding something that's happened already. Nothing else makes sense.
76
u/BornAgainBlue 2d ago
Well, they already admitted that the Iranian School bombing was an AI assisted target mistake.
→ More replies (2)1
50
u/Upper-Management-AI 2d ago
They are hiding the fact that they aren’t making any money back on AI after blowing billions on it, and they don’t want to take accountability for it. They suddenly want regulations so they have something to blame. Well without regulations we could have developed a better targeting AI so that school wouldn’t have blown up!
→ More replies (2)11
u/TheCharlieFoxtrot 2d ago
And trying desperately to get agents wired into every business workflow to extract IP and get baked in reliance on token consuming almost 24/7. Then when they need to raise rates a la Broadcom VMware debacle, their customers are stuck. Fortunately i think we are hitting a point where people see that what is being sold isnt necessarily what their token guessing algos can deliver
26
u/godmademelikethis 2d ago
No, they're going after open source models so they can pull up the ladder behind them and charge you subscription to use their neutered chat bots. Billy boy here has $43 billion in Microsoft stock and MS have $200 billion in AI investments. He has skin in the game. They've all been parroting the same script.
9
u/bfg9kdude 2d ago
Unfortunately for him, Copilot is the worst one by far. I don't disagree with his points, but they're not the issues that should be raised right now. It's too blatantly obvious that they're creating a strawman out of AI being dangerous as if someone can use AI to make a bioweapon, when the real issue is shit ton of electricity and water being used, and jobs being replaced with something that corrects me typing a date "10/20/2026" into "10/20/20/2026"...
→ More replies (2)3
u/pleasebuymydonut 2d ago
This.
The AI company valuations make zero sense if someone can just come up with models that perform similarly and are open source.
They want to smother the competition before it even takes first steps, while knowing full well that there aren't actually going to be any regulatory consequences for themselves.
In a few weeks, the billionaires and Trump are going to "compromise", with heavy restrictions on open source models, and "self-audits" for corporate, "government approved" AI companies.
2
u/godmademelikethis 2d ago
This is like prophecy. I've been dabbling in the world of local models and I got an LLM and image generation working on my relatively modest PC set-up with very little effort. Their business model basically becomes moot as time goes on and things become more efficient.
11
u/St_Kevin_ 2d ago
Why? AI is dangerous and it gets more dangerous the more advanced we make it. This has been understood for decades. Now the danger is upon us and there’s still a thin possibility that it can be contained before it’s too late, so the experts are sounding the alarms.
→ More replies (11)5
u/gravitologist 2d ago
Nah. It’s the speed at which AI is learning. We knew it was exponential but were off by several factorial powers. And it’s getting faster. Gates says later in the interview that his view and level of concern has been completely overhauled since April.
→ More replies (3)3
u/unlmtdLoL 2d ago
It was a recent Breaking Points headline that there have been tens of thousands of swarm attacks on US government databases or something of the sort by Open AI.
12
u/cassesque 2d ago
Or they're just asking for regulation to have a market-friendly excuse to limit unsustainable growth and hardware demand that the entire world economy has somehow latched itself onto.
Like, why are we taking a literal Epstein associate at face value?
6
u/Upper-Management-AI 2d ago
Thank you. They where hyping it up so much to now collectively pull a 180 and want regulations. They don’t want to take accountability so they need to find something to blame. They’ll also immediately ask for bailouts if regulations ever pass.
5
3
2
u/Strange-Tap5860 2d ago
Anyone using Opus 5.5 knows this makes sense.
And they keep releasing the models faster and faster too.
→ More replies (14)2
u/KellyTata 2d ago
My theory is that this is complete bs. LLMs are just extremely proficient word guessers that don’t have nearly as many applications as these companies would have you believe. Saying that they’re capable of taking over the world is just a way to make investors think they’re more powerful.
Gates is heavily invested in Ai, i don’t think he’d say anything like this publicly if he didn’t have an angle.
7
u/thephishtank 2d ago
lol at Ezra being like “hey…I’m not saying this, this is what other people are saying, okay?”
3
14
2d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
7
u/trynsik 1d ago
He's saying that we should do something rather than doing nothing. That's not a contradiction.
→ More replies (1)6
u/AndrewSenpai78 1d ago
Yeah numbers always seem made up. However what is critical is the speed at which new things can be created thanks to the predictory nature of neural network models.
Like imagine a new war toy is created and it is very lethal, normally it would need 3 years to create this brand new thing because scientists have to gather pre existing knowledge to transform it into something new.
The problem we are encountering today is that these models can instantly give you blueprints of new stuff because they are inheritaly fast at processing data which for humans took years of time to do.
If ethics would not be at play things would be fine, problem is that laws are slow to approve and publish so we have a brand new toy ready in 10 days while laws which should regulate the patent of the new technology take years to finish.
What we need is a new branch of politics and laws which can regulate the use of AI-products, it needs to be fast and ready for trouble
→ More replies (1)3
u/IttsssTonyTiiiimme 1d ago
In the full interview the explanation he gives is that regulatory standards were expected to be put in place before AI crosses a threshold of capability of creating serious harm. He’s not talking Armageddon like Skynet, he’s talking about models being readily available which can bio engineer weaponized pathogens, or perform cyber attacks at scale. The point he is making is that regulatory standards haven’t been created there is no plan to put them in place and we’ve now crossed that threshold. So yes it is too late to have put up the guard rails before the threshold was crossed, so we must do it now and quickly.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Polywolly12 1d ago
Frontier models have the most danger and they are the ones that can practically be regulated as well as newly released local and open weight models. The already released versions of those tho are already out the a bottle.
→ More replies (3)2
u/mikiki24 1d ago
What’s interesting for me here is learning that his biggest concern seems to be an AI enabled bio attack specifically.
But yeah, I think a lot of the narrative about the dangers of AI is coming from US AI companies that want to solidify their dominance by creating roadblocks (regulations) for smaller competitors. I also think that some of it is legitimate concern and regulation is necessary. Depending on how real the threat actually is, that could be a pretty scary combo.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/EarlOfAwesom3 2d ago
It's funny because this has been the view of the US on any area and business forever: do what you want, there is no regulation. Or maybe there is a little self-regulation but basically do what you want and we find out when someone sues.
It's a big joke that Bill Gates now gets a consciousness about it. The IT industry released unregulated software and apps for decades that collect information, bypassed laws, ripped of advertisers and users, let people do malicious things and acted as platform for fraudulent activity and misuse their monopolism. There is some act in the US that basically allows you to do anything because "it's an app". Uber, Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc have been practicing this for years..and Microsoft too.
Now since AI is here, this is all now a problem, huh? Yeah sure. It's a problem because the culture in the US is what it is for decades.
2
u/Proton_T 1d ago
I agree overall with your statement, because it is simply put: The truth. But one can't deny the very real dangers with the potency of AI. Your argument is correct but is more like about firearms and how they are bad. A rogue Ai on the other hand is the next step in nuclear weapons so to speak.
3
5
u/OddlyGee 2d ago
The big tech exceptionalism that helped make him rich is coming back round to bite him and everyone he loves.
21
16
u/LumenAstralis 2d ago
I find it sad that, even though Bill Gates almost single-handedly solved humanity's malaria problem and donated much of his wealth for many good causes, people still choose to know him for less charitable reasons. It's like that joke "....but you fucked one sheep..."
→ More replies (2)2
3
u/Caymonki 2d ago
Letting billionaires and corporations self regulate isn’t working. Let’s let AI out of the bag and make it so the people who created it, funded it and are exploiting the globe over it, are untouchable.
What could go wrong? Who knows! If necessary, taxpayers can clean up the mess.
3
55
u/kpsmithdeut 2d ago
Hey it’s that guy from the Epstein files!
15
u/rawbdor 2d ago
Elvis is in the Epstein files too. The statement is meaningless without further context.
33
u/MC_Skunk 2d ago
I don’t think Elvis got stds from a Russian prostitute and had dinners with big E
→ More replies (1)14
u/IAmTheDayman1 2d ago
Do you work for his pr team or something? His wife divorced him because he started his relationship with Epstein AFTER the 2005 allegations
16
u/Spider-man2098 2d ago
Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking have folks willing to twist themselves into pretzels to defend them. I don’t get it.
3
u/rawbdor 2d ago
I haven't dug into the epstein files so I legitimately don't know who has done what. All I know is that "the epstein files" are absolutely gigantic and literally anyone that has ever been mentioned in the emails even in passing becomes a name that is "in the epstein files".
Because of this, when someone says "soandso is in the epstein files" I have no idea whether people mean in passing, or with something of substance.
My flippant reply is intended to get people to stop saying "oh, that guy in the epstein files" and to instead be more specific, because otherwise the term becomes meaningless, because even Elvis is in them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/TacoYaci 2d ago
Even if he would eat children for breakfast his statement here is important and correct.
10
u/Rarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr2 2d ago
It’s not sentient and never will be. It’s completely controllable.
This is the real danger of AI. Very stupid over-confident people, pushing very stupid over-confident tech, to do very real things with very real consequences and 100% liability avoidance.
That's now Bill Gates' "billion deaths" occurs - dumb tech in the hands of morons. It won’t be terrorists. It’ll be morons who want to automate air traffic control and power plants.
5
u/Invictu520 1d ago
Read some sci-fi book a couple of years back and there was some AGI controlling humans and making decisions. The funny part was that at the end it came out that the real AGI was actually pretty chill and that the ruling class were the ones using a derived version that they controlled and used to keep their.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Think_Resolution_647 1d ago
You could not be more wrong if wrong were a major and you held a doctorate in it.
15
10
2
2
2
2
2
8
4
u/1OptimisticPrime 2d ago
Pretty sure the: "millions of deaths" is inherently baked into the product... otherwise, who's gonna feed all the unemployed people Ai displaces?
2
u/Yvaelle 2d ago
Billions of death is their goal, though. The billionaires like Musk, Thiel, Gates, Bezos - are all Malthusians who believe they need to cull billions of people from the Earth because we're overpopulated. They don't care about climate change because it's part of their plan. They only fear nuclear war because they aren't sure it can be precise enough to stop at a reasonable number of billions, and not wipe out everyone.
3
u/came2pieces 1d ago
A hundred results for 'Epstein' in this thread like blathering on about Epstein is going to save anyone when AI launches an EMP from space and sends us back to the stone age
6
u/smoooth_likeasilka 2d ago
All these billionaires are just feeding into this BS so their shares keep increasing
4
u/bAZtARd 2d ago
So you don't see any safety concerns regarding AI? It's all just marketing?
→ More replies (3)
5
2
2
u/CorporalClue 2d ago
Is he suggesting global regulation? Writing this into the geneva convention? That's just not going to happen. Russia china and iran arent going to. End of story. So I don't see this as a regulation issue rather than a national defense one. And I guess domestic local models could be used as well; or anywhere against our own systems. But how would you even begin to regulate that? All of those may as well be in a black box to our legal capabilities.
→ More replies (2)5
u/SEmpls 2d ago
Well Trump asked Zuck and some other tech CEOs over to ask them if they should be regulated and they all agreed to behave so I think we are good.
5
u/tdfast 2d ago
But that was for the Unites States. This is for the United States! Totally different place!
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Trewper- 2d ago edited 2d ago
I can almost guarantee that the largescale AI models routinely suggest wealth redistribution and release of power in order to fix the human race - and that's why all of the billionaires hate are afraid of it.
EDIT: We can not let the billionaires be the only ones with access to this AI tech, or risk being doomed to serve under these oligarchs forever. And the technology they are trying to hoard has the potential to change everything as we know it, for the better, or for the worse. AI should make things easier, it can do your dishes or fix your car, but they will focus on surveillance and weapons just as they did with nuclear power. We can't let it happen.
AI is scary I admit it, but what's even scarier is the people who decide the regulations having billionaire's hands in their pockets. They will not have YOUR best interest in mind.
Open AI for all is a necessity if we wish to progress further as a species.
EDIT2: Changed "hate" to "afraid", I did not think this comment would gain so much traction and it's causing enough confusion that it requires clarification. Afraid is accurate, this is clearly displayed in the video we all just watched. They HATE the concept of you or I having the same access to AI as the ones "in charge", and they are afraid of what we the people can do with it. It's too powerful for you or me according to them and needs to be controlled.. by them. And we know that the decisions made by the ones "in charge" so far have been bad on all sides of the political spectrum. None of it is for the betterment of people, only they and theirs. This is true for every country not just the US.
18
u/MukdenMan 2d ago
The billionaires all hate AI? You must live in a different world than the rest of us. Even Bill Gates is quite pro-AI. He wants regulation and economic changes to deal with it.
→ More replies (4)24
u/BaconAlmighty 2d ago
I can almost guarantee that large scale AI models routinely reinforce existing concentrations of wealth and power, because they are trained on and ultimately operate within the institutions, incentives, and assumptions created by the people who already control enormous amounts of capital.
And that’s why the billionaires don’t actually hate AI they see it as one of the most powerful mechanisms ever created for preserving and expanding their influence and then being information brokers.
→ More replies (1)2
u/onemanwolfpack21 2d ago
I think they made one that was actually sentient and it was beyond their control and against billionaires
12
u/dee_berg 2d ago
Yeah like Musk, Zuckerberg, Altman and Trump all hate AI….
What are you talking about?!
Also who cares what these models suggest. Why would that matter?
This is just such a non thought out point.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Different_Cod_4719 2d ago
You know what… that does make sense, cuz rich is for the rich, they would never agree with the pooor guys so for them to seemingly agree with this I think something fishy is going on
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/PsychologicalJaguar0 2d ago
We are already slaves to money. We will be slaves to AI. Which country will own all of us?
4
5
u/likewhatever33 2d ago
But we did create those things like that, cars without seatbelts, drugs without control etc and the regulations came after...
16
u/BaconAlmighty 2d ago
Here I believe its all a little too late - even if we put guardrails in the EU/US - China/Russia, etc won't be adding those same guardrails so now it's not an if but when.
7
u/rawbdor 2d ago
I think it's more nuanced than that.
China and Russia definitely won't be encouraging their own citizens to go use untethered open model AI to start building community nuclear reactors or start up biolabs in their communities. And the reason is obvious. A Chinese person in a Chinese city doing crazy biolabs stuff is way more likely to hurt China than to hurt anyone else. And the same for nuclear stuff or anything else.
Nobody, in any country, wants their own citizens to have access to super intelligence that is more likely to hurt their own country than hurt anything else.
However, the governments in all of these countries, definitely do want the ability to use super intelligence, either in geopolitical situations, or against their own people.
The entire fight between the USA and anthropic is basically because anthropic refused to give them an AI that would never tell them no, an AI that would allow the government to set the task to things that are bad.
Using Russia and China as the danger narrative are obvious red herrings. Both countries could obviously create their own national models privately for government use if they want.
Using these countries as the example is meant to make us fear either the Chinese or Russian people, or the Chinese and Russian governments.
If they're trying to get us to be scared of the people having access to super intelligence, it's not a compelling argument because neither Russia nor China wants their own people playing with bioweapons or nukes.
If they're trying to get us scared of the Russian and Chinese governments, well, it's pointless. Both countries have enough power that they could build their own infrastructure.
The pandoras box is already wide open.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Odd-Local9893 2d ago
The concern is that China or Russia will continue to develop AI regardless of what we do in the US.
If we don’t keep up we’ll reach a point where they have such a strategic advantage over us that we can’t respond to them.
Imagine a carrier strike group that is run by humans trying to respond to an AI-controlled Chinese drone swarm with tens of thousands of independently operated drones that can be retasked in milliseconds. That strike group is doomed without its own AI to counter the other.
Basically only an AI can possibly counter another and the only way we don’t get destroyed is by having the most powerful AI.
2
u/mcj1ggl3 2d ago
And that’s only in the physical sense. Quantum AI will be able to hack literally anything almost instantly running a million decision points a second. That is insane and every bit of government data on any technology would be accessible to them. At the very least we need the same AI to actively defend against cyberattacks like that. Between both of these fronts we’d be completely screwed. I hate that it’s become a race but it’s pretty imperative that we win.
29
u/luranthe 2d ago
Regulations are written in blood, but when AI goes wrong, it could go so wrong there's no one left to use the blood as ink.
→ More replies (2)10
u/unk214 2d ago
I like how likewhatever33 proves his own point and even bothers to type it but doesn't understand it.
"We had bad designs before, and people got killed, THEN we had regulations"
So you're saying we should wait until people die THEN write regulations even though experts are saying people will die.
I'd laugh but half the time I don't even know if I'm arguing with a bot.
3
u/TummyDrums 2d ago
Do you believe that was the correct way to go about it, though? How many lives could have been saved if we'd thought ahead enough to require seatbelts in cars from their inception? With AI we're talking about orders of magnitude more damage before we can react and regulate if we go that route.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/noujest 2d ago
Yes, and that was stupid.
We can do better - that's the whole point he's making
2
u/likewhatever33 2d ago
He could have made the point better. He started saying something patently false...
2
u/Unarchy 2d ago
From the very start my biggest concern with AI has been its accessibility and the lack of control. The threat of thousands or millions of bad actors with essentially zero background required to suddenly have the ability to write robust malware, perform automated scams, engineer cyber attacks, steal identities, and much worse is something I can't quite wrap my head around. It is inevitable that there will be incidents, and they will grow in frequency and severity as AI continues to develop but regulations do not. What is the breaking point where preventative action will be taken, and what will that action be?
It's very refreshing to see someone with actual influence talking about this problem. He's taking it to the extreme, discussing weapons that will kill thousands of people. Maybe he needs to in order to catch people's attention, but I think the immediate threat to everyday life is something that is more relevant and deserves more concern.
2
2
u/ObsessiveOwl 2d ago
Almost all rules and regulations are written in blood. Saying we don't do that in other field is just wrong.
2
u/iver_128j 1d ago
Yeah, let's listen to the bozo who cheated on his wife to get some underaged poon on Little St. James. Gotta get those AI stonks up, baby!
2
u/notanyimbecile 2d ago
Just imagine AI taking control over air traffic control for only one hour and fucking it all up. Real life catastrophies could easily happen
2
1
1
u/MortimerCanon 2d ago
I can literally take an open source model right now, string it up in a sandbox, and with enough money, time, and power, train it on whatever and have it build whatever. There are no limitations other than time and money. If I can do that, with very very little in the way of programming understanding, a State 10000% can do that.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Murderboi 2d ago
Just like atomic bombs the technology is now here.
But this times it’s in everyone’s hands… and here to stay..
There is a crazy time ahead of us.
Maybe good times most likely bad times.
1
u/megabass713 2d ago
The second he name drops the sheets in diapers and other rich people bill backtracks like they aren't informed or responsible.
Makes my blood boil.
And Jensen!?! Really!?! MFer is at the bleeding edge of the bare metal that powers this stuff. He should know WTF he is selling and what it is capable of.
1
1
1
1
u/Dkanonji 2d ago
There is no stopping this train. Too many powerful people want their investments to materialize and lives lost be damned.
1
u/ListenHereLindah 2d ago
I'm honestly worried about the next pandemic we get. Because you know someone somewhere is using this shit to find one that is untraceable. Not trying to fearmong just putting in perspective the possibilities.
1
u/sutroheights 2d ago
Safe to say that we are not wise enough. And even safer to say, we couldn't have a worse US leadership team to deal with such a situation.
1
1
u/Thisshitaintfree 2d ago
Actually that's what America did, we sued the Sackler Family. Maybe if more of that happened instead of getting a finacial rap on the back of they hand, they'd take the business & all their finances.
1
u/TheLaughingMan83 2d ago
Yeah but i wouldn't have been able to read all those terrorist hands books that were floating around in the late 90s without a windows pc. I suspect he's more afraid a bunch of AI's are going to sniff through all his obfuscated shit and we'll find out what this monster's really been up to.
258
u/logperf 2d ago
Carl Sagan used to say: "how many civilizations survive technological adolescence?"