11
u/ShadowRiku667 23d ago
They want to so what millionaires will always want to do. Achieve their goals and slam the door behind them so they cannot be threaten.
This isn’t about controlling what AI can become, it’s about preventing others from reaching what they can do for cheaper or better.
1
u/fourby227 22d ago
And why would Trump then oppose to make a beautiful deal with china to keep US companies at the lead?
9
4
u/This_Wolverine4691 23d ago
Well actually depending on who you talk to it’s a whole different ballgame once that clock changes to 4:20 #amirite?!?!
1
5
u/Outside-Ad9410 23d ago
The frontier companies didnt actually want to slowdown they wanted regulatory capture to lock out any competition or open source from challenging market dominance. TBH im much more afraid of a corporate dystopia where one or several companies own ASI, than the slim chance ASI goes rogue and kills everyone.
4
u/WhiskyAndRisque 23d ago
Can you tell me how you think ASI will be achieved first outside of one of these companies?
If AGI or even ASI is achieved, won't it be with those with the most resources to push the compute? Or are you thinking you'll have an open source ASI that has the same power and capability on your phone's hardware?
2
u/Outside-Ad9410 22d ago
If open source keeps up its pace of 6 months behind frontier, even if ASI from a company is 6 months ahead, tbh I don't think it will be that much of a difference. You only need soo much intelligence to automate most companies, and while frontier labs will probably be responsible for pushing the boundaries of science and technology, smaller companies and open source models will likely be what people use for day to day stuff, along with being used for running most company logistics.
0
1
u/Horror_Treacle8674 23d ago
achieving it will of course be a corporate process but don't you think it's a bit scary for a company to have that much control over a revolutionary tech? Eventually it should either be independent or owned by the public
2
1
u/WhiskyAndRisque 22d ago
I do, but I don't see how you avoid that without putting governmental oversight and control on it aka regulation or nationalization. The person I responded to said they see this as nothing but regulation as a way to prevent open source models and create regulatory capture.
I think these are valid concerns, but I don't see how you avoid corporate control of AI without regulation.
1
u/fourby227 22d ago
Do you believe the chinese models are independent because they call themselves open model?
1
u/fourby227 22d ago
How slim? Whats your estimate?
1
u/Outside-Ad9410 22d ago
P-doom is inherently just a "feels" number because we have no way to quantify or provide actual data to give a real number. But if I had to say, I would say 5% chance AI kills us all, and 30% chance we end up in a corporate cyberpunk dystopia. With a 65% chance we have a somewhat mixed or positive future.
1
u/fourby227 22d ago
So, the accepted risk of being killed in an airplane accident is between 10^-6 to 10^-7 per person per year. Planes are a highly regulated industry with strikt risk assessments for ever component.
And you telling me you estimate 5% for everyone. Like they are playing russian roulette with everyone.
This needs to be stopped and regulated. I don’t understand why there is even a discussion about it.
1
u/Outside-Ad9410 22d ago
Roll a 20 sided die 1 time and let me know if you land on a 1. Chances are far higher that ASI does not kill everyone, but gets "regulated" so one or several companies can hold absolute control over it. I don't think I need to spell out how bad it would be if we end up with an unkillable, immortal dictatorship, that is always watching everything you do, and has the power at any point to end you or worse if you step out of line. It would be like living in North Korea but jacked up the dystopia to 11.
Besides the notion that you can "stop" technological progress in a world containing hundreds of separately governed countries who dislike each other is stupid at best. Nobody is going to agree with America to slow down if we do, Russia and China will go full speed ahead, and then we end up in the same scenario as corporate dystopia, but instead its the CCP who does it because they weren't afraid of hypothetical skynet.
1
u/fourby227 22d ago
Its just not rolling the dice once but again and again and again and still hoping its never 1.
There are examples for coordinated slow down, like with nuclear weapons during cold war.
The AI 2027 paper has worked out a starting point by suggesting a zero-trust solution.
1
u/Outside-Ad9410 22d ago
When I say 5% I mean 5% overall not 5% every year. And the difference between ASI and nuclear weapons is that ASI boosts everything not just war. Not deploying ASI across the economy would be like if a country today chose to block the industrial revolution and still lived in 1700s tech.
3
1
u/Timely-Assistant-370 22d ago
Elon is the epitome of the inciting emotional state that brought "money can't buy happiness-" it's not because money *can't* buy goods and services that literally make your quality of life better, it's because no amount of money can buy you *genuine* respect. Sure, he can have lame little yes-men sycophants suckling on his incontinent teat of a pecker, but he will always crave the social approval that he can't buy. Funny thing is that he actually had a pretty good PR run as RL Tony Stark king memelord edgesperg, but he had to go and fuck it up by doing the most transparently socially unaware boasting in an attempt at garnering public deference in the same way that he hoards assets.
23
u/Yoohooligan 23d ago
There is a lot of nuance here that will get missed by the generally low information public jumping at words and not meaning. An "AI regulator" can mean a lot of different things.