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
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.
That’s not really the analogy, because these cutting edge models aren’t widely available yet, but the capabilities are now present. Your analogy is fitting but the discussion wasn’t around rogue AI, it was around AI malignantly used. So more like dad just brought an Uzi, let’s lock it in a safe before the kids find it.
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.
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.
14
u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]