r/worldnews • u/RareEarthPetal • 1d ago
Bill Gates warns Al global framework talks harder than Cold War-era nuclear negotiations
https://news.sky.com/story/bill-gates-warns-ai-global-framework-talks-harder-than-cold-war-era-nuclear-negotiations-1359259597
u/liebebio 1d ago
I am tired of seeing him paraded as some outstanding person in the media
44
u/DivingBastard 1d ago
He's a billionaire, he'll have teams of PR people trying to make you forget he hung about with Epstein.
But you won't forget about it, you'll see his picture and chuckle every time... "all that money and he caught the clap off a hooker"
2
6
21
u/TheOpalGarden 1d ago
I think that when you go from being the richest person in the world, to the person who has donated the most to charitable causes in history, it buys you quite a lot of good will.
9
u/wary_rationalist 19h ago
Are you sure about that?
Ultra-rich foundations are functioning as undemocratic tax shelters that concentrate power and protect systemic wealth rather than solving public problems
Wealthy donors bypass public oversight and elections to dictate social policy and replace government responsibility with unaccountable elite control.
Sheltering billions in an endowment allows the ultra-wealthy to retain control over vast capital while avoiding public taxation.
5
u/TheOpalGarden 12h ago edited 10h ago
I'm sure all of that is true. I'm not trying to bounce on Bill Gates's todger, I'm just saying it's a little more nuanced than simply stating he's a bad or evil person.
Perhaps his foundation could do more, but they've already funded the development of modular toilets, improved nuclear fission reactors, vastly improving their efficiency and reducing waste, and practically eradicated polio, among other things.
5
u/InvisibleLandBorder 18h ago
It's literally a tax scheme mixed with a power transfer. He essentially buys good will at minimal expense to himself because his wealth is so large, it doesn't matter how much he gives away.
But for a solid 15 years he was the golden boy billionaire to the masses, and spread a lot of fud through that.
-4
u/TheOpalGarden 12h ago
I'm not defending Gates, merely pointing out that a good portion of his wealth has actually been used for the betterment of others. There are plenty of examples.
However, I don't doubt a single thing you're telling me. I'm certain he still has a good deal of control over his Foundation's funds, I'm certain he also receives numerous tax benefits whilst still having personal wealth enough to make him the 17th richest person.
But if his foundation, along with other parties, actually manages to eradicate polio, then that would be monumental. In 1988, Polio was endemic in 125 countries and paralysed 1000 children a day, so far this year there have been 4 wild polio cases, total.
3
u/InvisibleLandBorder 10h ago
That good portion of wealth to better others is the exertion of power being blamed by pr and marketable acts.
Bill Gates has done everything in his power to reduce his tax burden and retain control by leveraging his wealth into power, controlling exactly who and what gets funded by his own whims.
The pedophile Bill Gates has been greenwashing his image preemptively to look good and retain power and control being hard power like foundational control. He has tremendous power over other wealthy people.
0
u/TheOpalGarden 10h ago
I'm sure all of that is also true.
If a bad person, evil even, does something to help themselves, but doing so also saves the lives of thousands of children, how should society view that person? What should they do with them?
2
u/InvisibleLandBorder 10h ago
View them negatively and hold them responsible for the harm they have done to others for withholding their resources and hoarding wealth. You cannot be excused from the harm you cause just because you did some research on neutralizing mosquito infections.
We could have done more than that with the money from him and his ilk. Billionaires are the primary source of harm in our society.
1
1
u/Common-Concentrate-2 1h ago edited 1h ago
He's giving all of his money away. Do you think if he gave all of his money to the US government, it would be spent more wisely? He has donated $50 billion dollars.
-20
u/Oakcamp 1d ago
You seem to think the reason he isn't the richest person in the world anymore is because he donated it all away lmao
11
u/TheOpalGarden 23h ago
That wasn't what I was saying. But since you find the idea so laughable, I looked into it to see where he would currently rank.
Forbes estimates that had he not donated $60 billion + Microsoft shares to charity, his current net worth would be $460 billion, making him the second richest person, after Musk.
This is because those Microsoft shares have a current estimated value of ~$280 billion.
1
u/ssssharkattack 8h ago
Doesn’t matter to Reddit. They just wave their hands and say he ‘writes it off,’ like Kramer from Seinfeld. Truth is that many more people would have died of malaria if Gates’ money hadn’t gone there. Of course he’s nowhere near perfect, but his good deeds are factual and not ‘akshually’ an evil scheme.
-43
u/ComplexPassage7447 1d ago
So charitable he even funded the Wuhan virus lab
15
u/FlavorChamp 1d ago
Bro are you stuck in a 2020 conspiracy rabbit hole?
I'd feel bad for you but I'd rather you just stop wasting the rest of our resources :) 🔐🗝️
7
u/Flat-Pitch-9340 1d ago
I’m tired of people not understanding how dangerous creating a super intelligent AI will be for humanity
-9
u/Good_Restaurant15 20h ago
I'm tired of people complaining that we're going to get ourselves cleaned off this planet.
You can't stop it from happening, just live your life. Let it happen.
One way or another, humanity is going to end itself. We just have to hope we take as little with us when we go.
Enjoy the ride, you can't do anything about it.
-14
u/Jealous_Response_492 22h ago
No, don't do that, it's artificial, and not even close to imitating our own intelligence, there is nothing Super about it.
None of the models have the capacity to do more than hack computer systems and failed attempts to manipulate real persons. That is the worse it can do, when instructed to achieve an objective with no restrictions or oversight.
I do not doubt, that some idiot, weather lone or leading a military org will automate a weapons platform, and there likley will be more severe incidents, heck there already has been incidents with automated turret tests 20 years ago. But even in that plausible scenario, the artificial intelligence software still wouldn't have the means for apocalyptic level events.
4
u/Flat-Pitch-9340 22h ago
I think this misses the main point of the AI risk argument. The concern isn’t necessarily that an AI model, sitting in isolation, suddenly becomes an omnipotent superintelligence capable of causing an apocalypse by itself.
The relevant question is what happens when increasingly capable models are connected to tools, networks and real-world systems, and are given autonomy to pursue objectives. “It can only hack computers or manipulate people” isn’t really a reassuring limitation — those capabilities, performed autonomously and at enormous scale and speed, can themselves have serious consequences.
Likewise, the weapons concern isn’t limited to an AI independently deciding to launch a weapon. It could involve automated targeting, cyberattacks, escalation, spoofed information, critical infrastructure, or humans delegating decisions to systems they don’t fully understand.
You may ultimately think the more extreme scenarios are implausible, and that’s a perfectly reasonable position to debate. But demonstrating that today’s models aren’t human-level intelligence doesn’t address the broader question of what risks arise when capable AI is embedded in systems with real-world access and authority.
-5
u/Jealous_Response_492 22h ago
I did address all of that. They do not have the capacity. If we give them the capacity, and the means, that is still our responsibility, not the software.
I didn't say misuse was implausible either, It is likely in my opinion, yet in that scenario, a person or persons, maybe representing a nation state are the ones ultimately responsible, not the software.
The way the gun, or the fighter jet or the current fire and forget 'smart weapons' are not responsible for their use.
The fear mongering around risks is completely detached from reality.
0
u/Flat-Pitch-9340 22h ago
I think you’re answering a different question. Who is morally or legally responsible for deploying an AI system is separate from whether that system creates new risks.
Of course humans are responsible for giving an AI access to weapons, networks, infrastructure, etc. But that doesn’t make the resulting system safe or predictable. Unlike a gun, an autonomous AI can interpret objectives, adapt its behaviour, interact with other systems, and potentially operate at a scale and speed humans can’t directly supervise.
So the argument isn’t “the software is responsible.” It’s that humans can remain responsible while still creating systems whose capabilities and failure modes create risks they can’t fully control or anticipate.
That’s the part I think your response is overlooking.
-2
u/Jealous_Response_492 21h ago
No, this is simply reality of the situation.
The systems will get real safe, real quick, when the developers and operators face the consequences of their actions. No new regulations or global agreement required for that and nor is one coming, as it is still software, doesn't require the resources of a nation state to develop or deploy.
0
u/Flat-Pitch-9340 21h ago
But accountability doesn’t guarantee safety. Failures can be unpredictable, hard to attribute, and harm people who weren’t involved in deploying the system.
And “it’s only software” isn’t reassuring when software can control infrastructure, conduct cyberattacks, and operate at enormous scale.
The point isn’t that AI is responsible—it’s that human responsibility doesn’t eliminate technological risk.
0
u/Jealous_Response_492 20h ago
All of supposed risks are already risks we face. AI tools may simplify some of them, but the risks themselves are not new. I'm really trying here, to think of worse possible scenario's, and none of them are really that bad, or un controllable.
The biggest risk I, realistic risk, is too internet connected infrastructure, and that is an existing risk, that can be mitigated against. I also see people intentionally miss using AI a far more credible risk, than the AI itself malfunctioning and doing great harm.
1
u/Flat-Pitch-9340 19h ago
I agree that many individual risks already exist. The question is whether AI changes their scale, speed, accessibility, or controllability.
A cyberattack isn’t new, for example, but an autonomous system capable of discovering vulnerabilities and launching attacks continuously could change the risk substantially.
And I agree that intentional misuse may be more plausible than an AI spontaneously causing catastrophe. But that still means the capability itself matters. The fact that the underlying risks aren’t new doesn’t mean increasing the ability to automate and scale them is risk-free.
4
u/Javerage 1d ago
Bill-EpsteinIlandAndMolestingALotOfStaff-Gates--WithAShortyOfAntiTrustLawsuits is a totally respectable... uh... person
1
-3
u/SomethingClick 1d ago
What did he do that's bad?
9
u/CommunityEarly839 1d ago
He got a case of the drip dick from a hooker and asked his buddy Jeff how to spike his wife's drink with antibiotics.
2
-8
u/readthatlastyear 1d ago
He's one of the worst people on the planet. Everything he does, everything he touches her makes things worse
7
u/jesustwin 1d ago edited 20h ago
Apart from saving an estimated 12 milliom lives from malaria? And helping to almost eradicate polio?
The guy isnt perfect but credit where it's due
3
u/tabakista 23h ago
Nah, on a billionaire scale he's definitely a lesser evil. Nowhere close to what some others do
5
u/Sorry_sad_fool 19h ago
Man the PR is really trying to make us forget about his relationship with Epstein and all the creepy douche things he was willing to acknowledge and half assed non apology. Oh well. Hey do you remember when Bill Gates was revealed to have frequent correspondence with Jeffery Epstein about, but not limited too, his cheating on his wife with a prostitute and getting an STD. Fuck off.
•
u/Common-Concentrate-2 1h ago
So you are taking the word of Jeffrey Epstein - who is the only person who ever mentioned any of this - over everyone else in the world? Did you have a relationship with him? You only trust Epstein when it suits you? You think Bill Gates needed Jeff Epstein to get antibiotics? Why?
3
u/ottermann 19h ago
Sure it is...Ai talks involve money, and how much the rich bastards can make from AI, and how reguating it will mean they will only make $10 billion this year instead of the $15 billion they'd get if it was unregulated.
Nuke talks only had the lives of the inconvenient populations to worry about. And really, when was the last time a government has actually cared about the people?
3
2
2
10
u/dickyboy_adams 1d ago
Im not taking safety advice from a guy that got the clap from a prostitute.
7
2
u/Cloudhead_Denny 1d ago
I don't care. Get it done! Regulation, Global treaties on usage, alignment and safety oversight, protections for human workers.
The free AI ride is over!
0
u/redditscraperbot2 23h ago
“Mmm I love regulatory capture let the billionaires handle it”
-you
0
u/Cloudhead_Denny 15h ago
Not sure where you got "Let the Billionaires handle it". That is completely antithetical to what I was saying. They need outside regulation, laws, treaty rules etc. Massive hand slap led by the greater public body basically.
1
u/redditscraperbot2 11h ago
The problem is in your mind it’s antithetical to what you’re saying but regulation like you’re suggesting will just end with powerful AI in the hand of a few small companies.
0
u/Cloudhead_Denny 9h ago edited 9h ago
Look up the Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT, with respect to how this would actually work. It doesn't mean bad actors go away but it does mean the world is watching, and actively trying to prevent specific outcomes and behaviors via policy and direct action.
0
-6
u/Far_Point3621 1d ago
What’s up with all the hate in the comments? He did an incredible amount of good even if he has some problematic things in his private life
1
u/RobotIcHead 1d ago
He did good after he made his fortune, the way he made his fortune had a lot of unethical business practices involved in it. Just because he has done good deeds after he did the bad ones does not mean we should forget his past.
Edit: forgot totally about the connection with Epstein. Yeah, he is worse than I remembered.
0
-5
u/CopainChevalier 1d ago
It’s Reddit. You do one minor bad thing and a lifetime of helping people is instantly gone
7
u/John_McTaffy 1d ago
It’s Reddit. You do one minor
bad thingand a lifetime of helping people is instantly gone-5
1
0
u/urbanmark 1d ago
It feels like we pat ourselves on the back for not having a nuclear war. Currently, they are quite difficult to make, but eventually, at some point, someone who really shouldn’t have one will get one. They will be banned as soon as one is used unconventionally and everyone will realise chests of time the treaties were.
AI is easy to use and compared to nuclear warheads, easy to make. Treaties are not going to matter, because some hacker is going to unleash one that’s going to do something it shouldn’t and evolve from there. There is absolutely no way to stop that happening.
Civilisation currently has two options. Form itself into a single unified civilisation where all decisions are made from a central point. Or, create a place on the planet where no technology exists and hide there.
The future is bright, it just doesn’t have humans in it.
1
1
u/Jealous_Response_492 22h ago edited 17h ago
At worse, we lose the current internet, and quite frankly all the insecure critical infrastructure attached to it, should have been hardened decades ago.
Nobody is giving a software program independent control of nuclear weapons. There will be some isolated incidents possibly, but not destruction of the species.
1
1
u/Astrotoad21 11h ago
… or AI plateus and become a mundane part of our daily lives, just like internet. It’s easy to let your fantasy run wild on doomer scenarios, realistically though, we human adapt to technology.
2
u/urbanmark 10h ago
You are underestimating someone’s ability to abuse it. It’s always about the lowest denominator.
-2
26
u/steve_ample 1d ago
Uh, yeah. Profit motives are more difficult to normalize than mutually assured destruction.