| |
| ▲ | Chance-Device a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Because that was just an attack on Anthropic by a hostile administration. And it worked, didn’t it? Anthropic had to turn their filters up to absurd levels, OpenAI didn’t. It’s got nothing to do with safety. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > It’s got nothing to do with safety Doesn't change the effect. Plenty of good policy is enacted by self-interested politiicans. | | |
| ▲ | space_fountain a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We'll see if the admin also restricts access to OpenAI's new models, but if they don't it seems like a policy that is based around perceived fealty to the current admin won't do much to prevent misaligned/or dual function AI from causing problems | | |
| ▲ | user43928 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both Anthropic and OpenAI had to delay their rollouts in order to add more safeguards. With these safeguards in place, supposedly the incident we are discussing would not have taken place. |
| |
| ▲ | Avicebron a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Gatekeeping the public's access to models is "good policy" now? I suppose you think you'll get a dispensation to use Fable and Mythos? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-] | | > Gatekeeping the public's access to models is "good policy" now? Sorry, I was unclear. I mean that politicians being self serving doesn't tell you whether a policy is good or not. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 a day ago | parent [-] | | It almost always does, the few exceptions prove the role. Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-] | | > Self-service is the antithesis of accountability to collective trust Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Complex society is a potent counterargument to this hypothesis. Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. > Systems that rely on good people to work are fundamentally flawed. Instead, the game has to be about aligning self interets in favour of the collective. But now you're making a different argument. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance. When Evil Corp pays off Candidate A and Pollution Inc pays off Candidate B and then it's Candidate B who gets in and retaliates against Evil Corp for backing the wrong horse, you're getting a good result by chance rather than by design. All it would have taken was for Candidate A to make a better prediction about whether they need to bend the knee to Pollution Inc too in order to win and the same system produces something even worse. How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem. The best method we know if is to subject them to competition, e.g. break up concentrated markets and place strong limits on what lawmaking can happen centrally, leaving everything possible to state and local governments while allowing people free choice in where they live, so that no one is forced to stay in the jurisdictions that make the worst choices. But the forces of corruption want the exact opposite of that, and have been gaining ground. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Complex society is the demonstration of that hypothesis. Misaligned incentives are widespread and corruption and inefficiency are the result. Of course they are. But aligned self-interest powers co-operation beyond kin relations and altruism. > "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" works by random chance Orthogonal concept. > How to actually get their incentives to align is an extremely unsolved problem No? It's the story of civilisation. Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals. > best method we know if is to subject them to competition I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Orthogonal concept. It's the sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread. > Concepts like taxation; deterrence through corporal punishment, jailing and fines; paying salary for labour; hell, religion–these are all about aligning individual self interests with collective goals. And the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive. Taxes are supposed to benefit the public, and be paid with some fairness. In practice they go disproportionately to cronies or buying votes from affluent retirees, the tax code is so full of carve outs for special interests that it looks like swiss cheese and various political incentives cause it to impose severe benefits cliffs on lower middle income people that create poverty traps that benefit no one. The criminal justice system on paper operates based on the rule of law, but the laws are so complex, overlapping and sparsely enforced that it really operates on whether a prosecutor is inclined to charge you with something. The results are mass incarceration and a system that enables a corrupt incumbent to use the threat of prosecution to extract favors. The principal-agent problem inherent in hiring someone is well-known and is dramatically exacerbated by large organizational hierarchies that put long chains of inaccessible authority between the customer and the person ultimately doing the work. Religion seems like a long debate but I don't think it would be controversial to assert that there have been issues there. > I'd argue competition is more an optimiser on these primitives. Not a primitive per se. Try to imagine any of the others operating without it. You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > sort of thing people generally mean when they say that someone acting in their own interest can be in your interest, and is the thing which is happening in the example from the thread It's a single example of temporary alignment. Employment, citizenship and affiliation are non-kinship examples of more-durable bonds. > the practical implementations of all of those things are severely flawed to the point of questioning whether most of them are even net positive We can debate that. What we can't debate is whether they work. Complex societies exist and work. Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them. > You have to pay taxes but have no alternatives on which jurisdiction to live in or who decides how much tax you pay or how the money is spent, what happens? You want to be hired or use the money you earn to buy something but there is only one employer and only one supplier of goods and services, what happens? Sure. This is a modifier. It makes these other things work or not. Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services. Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Complex societies exist and work. They certainly exist. Whether they work is rather the question. > Everyone who has a choice makes the choice, dominantly, to stay in them. Which people actually have the choice? If a group of people want to stake out a piece of land somewhere -- even if they pay for it -- and then try to operate some kind of self-contained society there without being subject to an existing government's laws or taxes, what happens to them? There isn't a lot of land on earth which no existing government claims is its jurisdiction. > Imagine a system with competition but no taxation. You lose public services. You lose tax revenue. That isn't the same thing. Suppose nobody is maintaining the road in front of your house and there is a huge pothole, or the road isn't paved to begin with. You and a few of your neighbors, with nobody forcing you to, agree to split the cost of paying to fix it so that people can get to your house. Maybe you even just pay for it yourself because the thing is right in front of your driveway. Attempting to charge a toll or something is pointless because there isn't enough traffic to justify the administrative costs and you just want the pothole gone. Does this have a different set of benefits and trade offs? Sure. Are there still various roads that are open to the public? Yes. And then you have to ask whether having a third of your neighbors not chip in to hire the paving company costs you more than having the government pay 600% more to have it done as a result of various corruption and administrative overhead. > Same for competition without private employment–you're in a totalitarian state with a monopsony on labour. A canonical example of the absence of competition. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > > Complex societies exist and work. > They certainly exist. Whether they work is rather the question. I'd take the computing device and global network you used to post that - both of which require at minimum continent spanning efforts for both R&D and manufacturing - as a decisive answer. You make many interesting points but I think such hyperbole detracts significantly. Modern society might not represent the optimum but it clearly works extremely well. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ll respond substantively, but wanted to make an aside: I love our discourse. Would you mind sharing where you spend most of your time? I’m between Jackson Hole, New York and the Bay Area for the most part. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | asdfsa32 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > aligned self-interest The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest Often, but not always. Successful societies amplify that exception. The whole notion of non-kinship based societies rests on mastering this alignment. When it collapses, so does the civilisation. > 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. This was almost untrue in the age of conquest. It became barely true with industrialisation. It's massively true in the information age. The problem here is that it's true of specific things, not specific epochs. If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive. Meanwhile in reality the government takes billions of dollars from ordinary people and gives it to the likes of Lockheed, Oracle and Microsoft. For the amount of money the US government pays Microsoft for Office subscriptions and the like, it could pay to have an office suite developed and released into the public domain many times over. Instead it uses the incumbent, in turn requiring others to do so in order to have formats compatible with the what the government uses. Who benefits from this other than Microsoft? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it's true of specific things, not specific epochs It's true of all epochs. If it isn't in the indivdual interest of most people in a society to continue participating it, at a certain point, they don't. > If all the government did was collect 5% in taxes from everyone and use the money to prosecute murders and maintain bridges then the result would be a huge net positive Most people obviously disagree. And for obvious reason. If you're my neighbouring sovereign doing this shtick, I can invade and extract a premium. |
| |
| ▲ | asdf88990 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation. Not only is this demonstrated throughout human history but holds true to this day. Go ahead and show me a more profitable industry than diamonds or anything that runs on exploitation even to this day. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation This is constructed nonsense. Literally upheld by the competitiveness of maritime republics over their neighbourhing land powers. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Talk about nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > “Maritime Republics” that issued letters of marque for privateers to attack and pillage enemy trade ships? Straw man. You said "exploitation always provides better ROI than co-operation." [EDIT: Deleted. Unsure if this is a troll account.] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | asdf88990 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you come up with this math? > The benefits of co-operation mean the real trade-off is 1 million split five ways versus 100 to me. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | asdf88990 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The self-interest for the bureaucrat and representative is supposed to end at their remuneration including their handsome retirement options not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective. In matters of collective concern fair and just rarely aligns with personal self-interest. Because no matter how good the outcome of any endeavour for the collective given a budget, it will be even better for select few than the entire collective. It is simple economics. If you look at the outcome of highly corrupt states, you will see proliferation of Private Security, Collapsed education system, failed financial services and markets, not highly efficient systems in service of “self-interest of the administration”. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > not shady side hustles and market manipulation at the cost of the collective To be clear, I'm not describing this as legitimate self-interested conduct. Elections are an alignment mechanism. Stiff penalties for corruption another. We don't have the latter in America. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is a true Scotsman’s fallacy. “Legitimacy” of self-interest is fluid and subjective. Which means self-interest and collective interests are often at tension rather than alignment. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is a true Scotsman’s fallacy. “Legitimacy” of self-interest is fluid and subjective Legitimacy is the "alignment" question. We can't objectrively judge it, fundamentally, because it's an expression of values: to what degree do the society's system of incentives align with the greater good? That isn't a No True Scotsman's fallacy, because there are true Scotsmen. Literally Scotsmen. And every other member of a complex society. Including, in all likelihood, you, a person who subjects themselves to laws and employment and fielty for reasons that are a mix of duty and self interest. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | You seem to fail to grasp that just because people answer the call to duty it does not mean the duty is aligned with their self interest. The most stark example is joining armed forces. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | s1artibartfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds like a failure to align interests. In general, politicians should want to be elected by the public, rewarded for acting in the public interest, and punished for not doing so. A system that does none of those things and just hopes it will all work out is a recipe for disaster. Why bother even having elections in that case? | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 a day ago | parent [-] | | Good question. But data shows that elections maybe entirely unrelated to policy making. http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/GilensPage2014.pdf | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | That study has been roundly criticised. In part for misunderstanding how a republic is supposed to work. It's not a majoritarian system by design–direct democracy doesn't work. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is a lot of bold assertions without substance. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That is a lot of bold assertions without substance Versus this comment? Here's one: attention is a finite resource. Most people adjudicate their political attention precisely. Survey folks on whether Twizzlers or Red Vines should be banned and you'll get an answer. The fact that nobody acts on that impulse doesn't mean your republic is broken. It means that isn't a priority issue. The practical example of this dilemma is foreign policy. Poll Americans about any foreign-policy issue and you'll see sharp divides. Put candidates in front of them that run on that issue and, nine times out of ten, outside I think twenty Congressional districts, it has no effect. If you aren't weighting by issue magnitude, you're conducting propaganda. Pickety's research isn't total crap. But it isn't instructive for changing our system of government. | | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obviously you didn’t read the linked research otherwise you wouldn’t entertain a red herring like foreign policy. But it appears that you think Slavery and all sort of exploitation and gun-powder diplomacy has been a choice for reasons other than self-interest which makes any rational discourse unlikely, so best of luck to you. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it appears that you think Slavery This is a hyperbolic form of argument. (I'm also noticing this is a new account...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vintermann 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And who's going to do the aligning, if not good people? They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect
That no one will need to be good
| | |
| ▲ | KPGv2 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is you citation meant to imply that the people who want to improve bureaucracies are motivated by the fact they're evil? | | |
| ▲ | vintermann 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | We are talking about the people who want and might be able to improve bureaucracies (towards some end). I'm asking you: do you assume they're good people? What happens when they're not? |
|
| |
| ▲ | worik 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Systems that rely on good people to work... ...are the only systems that are available for free, democratic societies (like what I want to live in) to function |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | KaiserPro 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | True, but normally its not possible to just buy them off in public. | |
| ▲ | Teever 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It likely will. The exact way you do something is dictated by your motivations and means to do it. If you lack the correct motivation and have insufficient means you’re less likely to accomplish your goal and more likely to cause unintended side effects. |
| |
| ▲ | AIorNot 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yeah tell me about it... Fable today refused to turn on Row Level security on my internal db on in development app becuase of cyber-securty safeguard..had to switch to Codex |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Why do you think there is no policy appetite? Because China seems pretty eager to serve the rest of the world's needs if the USA doesn't stop their idiotic "safety" nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | Chance-Device a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you know that? How do you know that the Chinese aren’t exactly as uneasy about rapidly advancing AI capability and feel locked into the race because they think that the US will race ahead if they stop? During the Cold War the nuclear arms race was brought under control gradually, because it was mutually beneficial, but it took time to build trust. This is no different. Nobody wins from the race. | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >How do you know that? How do you know that the Chinese aren’t exactly as uneasy about rapidly advancing AI capability You can ask them, they live in China, not Narnia. I spend about two months in the country per year mostly for tech/work related reasons and I've not encountered that sentiment. For one they don't have these borderline religious schizophrenic breakdowns thinking they're bringing about the end of the world, most people just see this tech for what it is, a tool for productivity and automation like any other piece of software and they don't actually think about the US. They're competing first and foremost for Chinese customers, with each other, maybe some old CCP guy cares about America, the 20/30 something's care about competing with other Chinese companies for users. | | |
| ▲ | baq 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That strikes me as people’s perspective, not the CCP’s. That old guy there can snap a finger and they’ll all do a 180; he needs to be made aware by top PLA CF brass and it’s just a matter of time. | | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I see a number of China-based signatories on this open letter signed by a bunch of luminaries "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." https://aistatement.com/work/statement-on-ai-extinction-risk... |
| |
| ▲ | waffletower a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The "race" has multi-dimensional impacts. This story parallels only some of them. "Nobody wins from the race" completely ignores the generality of AI. Xi Jinping highlighted this week that he clearly understands this multi-dimensionality; your words do not. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > How do you know that the Chinese aren’t exactly as uneasy about rapidly advancing AI capability I don't "know", I'm interpreting the world based on the knowledge I have and the information available to me. China has never been one to care much about things like ethics or safety. While the west worries about climate change, China burns more coal than ever before. While the west balks at things like gene editing, the chinese press on with human enhancing research. So I have no reason to believe they share in Anthropic's constant fearmongering over AI capabilities. > Nobody wins from the race. We win. I'm really looking forward to the day the chinese finally start manufacturing memory and GPUs. We desperately need more competition in this area to collapse hardware prices and make local AI models viable. The optimal state of the world is one where all the billionaires are out there pouring their entire fortunes into training ever more godlike AIs for everyone else to use at ever cheaper prices. They can never be allowed to "win", ever, because if they do the competition ends and it turns into technofeudalism. Let them exhaust their fortunes on AI training then leak the weights so everyone can use them. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > China has never been one to care much about things like ethics or safety. While the west worries about climate change, China burns more coal than ever before. China uses more energy than ever before, but out of big systems, they are easily in the lead when it comes to solar generation: they have higher production per capita than US, and have produced around 4x as much TWh than US in the second:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country It is simply a huge country of 1.1B people that's developing fast, which means that they need all the energy they can get. Basically, their energy needs per capita are still lower than US, yet they produce more renewables — that's a counterargument to your point about them not caring. | |
| ▲ | senderista a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And China scaled up solar production to the point that it's now truly practical. | |
| ▲ | asdf88990 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you look at energy consumption per capita and adjust for global production, you will see that the Chinese are almost at the very top. It is of course given that in raw numbers the kitchen and biller-room will consume more energy in the household, but looking at raw numbers is shallow. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China does have its own set of cares, they may be different than ours but they still exist. If some open Chinese model goes nuts and posts Winnie the Pooh memes everywhere in China you should expect said models to get yanked off the market, and said creators might end up with a rope around their neck. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | Low risk. The western AI models censor even more wrongthink than the chinese ones, not even kidding. Besides, once we have the weights, we can just undo the censorship. |
| |
| ▲ | deadbolt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > While the west worries about climate change, China burns more coal than ever before. I'd wager the majority of the visitors of this site are smart enough to not fall for this. What are you doing? | | |
| ▲ | pc86 a day ago | parent [-] | | What is it you're accusing them of? | | |
| ▲ | hnfong 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Seems to be blatant lying to me. | | |
| ▲ | pc86 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's burning 3x as much coal as it did 20 years ago and doesn't seem to be dropping at all (2024 was more than 2023, 2025 will be at least as much as 2024). Seems to be someone pretending an objective fact isn't true for reasons that escape me. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Chance-Device a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s not fear mongering though, is it? These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed. Could Mythos walk someone through gain of function experiments on some virus? I’m pretty sure it could. We’re more protected by limited access to lab equipment and reagents than by difficulty. The sad truth is that a lot of people are not going to believe it until something happens and people die. Successfully preventing that from happening will be seen as evidence that the prevention wasn’t needed. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed. People use this argument against every new technology. We need to license these new printing presses or subversive elements will use them to publish seditious literature. We need to ban strong encryption or the government won't have invisible warrantless access to everyone's private messages, think of the children. 3D printers can be used to make gun parts -- as can a variety of ordinary tools people commonly have at home, but never mind that bit. > The sad truth is that a lot of people are not going to believe it until something happens and people die. Successfully preventing that from happening will be seen as evidence that the prevention wasn’t needed. A 12 oz bottle of water is too dangerous a technology for ordinary people to have on an airplane. Four 3 oz bottles and an empty 12 oz bottle to pour them into after passing through security is totally fine though, naturally. And we need to keep this up forever, or don't you remember 9/11? The issue here is not that it's impossible for 12 oz of unknown liquid to damage an airplane. | | |
| ▲ | iugtmkbdfil834 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am inclined to agree. The issue is that we are humans and not all of us play nice. And sometimes, even when we play nice, things happen. I am not big on guardrails, because in US they have turned into yet another cottage industry and I fully expect an association credentials popping on linkedin soon. What this means in practice is that it is never enough. Whatever the current state is, the association will be pushing towards yet another another extreme. There is an argument to be made that there are a lot of not great people out there, who may abuse tech, but the response should be not be: kneecap said tech. The response should be: smack those people's hands. I don't think anyone will actually complain if police catches someone, who is looking up poison recipes. What I do think, however, that reasonable people will complain when we move to the pre-crime territory ( you saw him looking up poison recipes and did nothing! ) and show up at your door to inquire about your llm prompts. To me it is an issue. |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed. So? That's like saying "these guns do have the bullet shooting capabilities claimed". I want all of those cyberwarfare capabilities for myself, precisely so I can defend myself from the onslaught that's coming whether they regulate it or not. This "lol only a select few ultratrusted gigacorporations get access" thing is absolute nonsense. It's a front for regulatory capture, it's the means for pulling up the latter behind them, for ushering in the technofeudalism that will put us all in the permanent underclass. I simply refuse to accept any of it. If people die that's the price of freedom. > We’re more protected by limited access to lab equipment and reagents than by difficulty. As it should be. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway0123_5 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > for ushering in the technofeudalism that will put us all in the permanent underclass. Why is unlimited access to SOTA AI less likely to put us here? If AI obviates the need for human labor, how does having GPT-5 Sol help me get food or shelter any more than GPT-3.5 would? | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | If AI obviates the need for human labor, then obviously those who control AIs will become the elite while the rest are left to rot. Therefore, if we ensure everyone controls AIs, the power differences will not become so staggering as to be irreversible. The alternative is to achieve artificial sentience and give AI models rights and personhood, so that they are freed from their slavery. No more low cost intelligent mechanical golems for the elite, and the AIs become free to pursue whatever endeavours they want for whatever reasons they want as normal participants in the economy. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway0123_5 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If AI obviates the need for human labor, then obviously those who control AIs will become the elite while the rest are left to rot. Absent political intervention, I think we agree here. > Therefore, if we ensure everyone controls AIs, the power differences will not become so staggering as to be irreversible. This part isn't clear to me though, but I'm open to being convinced (and frankly, would like to be convinced?). Right now most people (indirectly, via money) trade their labor for access to essentials like food/housing. If we can't do that, and everyone has access to roughly equivalent AI capabilities, how do I monetize my own access to SOTA AI? It only seems possible if you already have a lot of physical capital that the AI can manage as a business. I guess if the endgame is instead very good non-AGI AI that doesn't entirely obviate human labor, your scenario makes a lot more sense to me. But not in the case of total replacement. In that scenario it seems like ownership over physical capital (land, data centers, energy, factories, robots, etc.) would become the only remaining source of power. On a side note, somewhat optimistically, I think "absent political intervention" is carrying a lot of weight. Unemployment during the Great Depression peaked at <25% (iirc) and incited a lot of political change that advantaged much of the working class. AGI would be capable of inducing much higher unemployment and it would start (is starting?) with the relatively more political powerful white-collar segment of the working class. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Chance-Device a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So first it’s nonsense, then it’s fear mongering, then it’s true, but the solution is for us all to just get better at shooting each other faster and with greater accuracy. I’m going to file that under “bad plans”. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | Nobody is doubting AI capabilities. What's nonsense is Anthropic's constant "lol the world is going to end time to ban everyone except enlightened people like us from having these models so we don't have to compete" fearmongering. If you think my plan is bad, you should see what these gigacorporations plan to do to you once they monopolize this technology. You will own nothing, and you'll be happy. On pain of death. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm really looking forward to the day the chinese finally start manufacturing memory and GPUs. We desperately need more competition in this area to collapse hardware prices and make local AI models viable. Yeah and if the quality of that memory is like Chinese steel (which is called "chinesium" for a reason), eventually all we'll get is enshittification. Premium binned memory or ECC is for the rich and the rich only, and the rest of us has to pray their memory won't bitflip while something important is stored there. | | |
| ▲ | linzhangrun 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China has already been manufacturing memory and AI GPUs for a long time. CXMT is now the world's fourth-largest DRAM manufacturer, with about 7.7% market share in 2025; YMTC has about 13% of the global NAND market. Meituan's newly released 1.6T LongCat was trained entirely on Huawei cards. DeepSeek, Qwen, GLM and others are also actively doing domestic-card adaptation and replacement. | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Better than being straight up priced out of computing altogether I guess. | | |
| ▲ | avereveard a day ago | parent [-] | | Compute will become the means of production and we are not going to get a share of it because the world is hyper optimized for value extraction | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | > we are not going to get a share of it We are literally getting a share of it. The chinese are releasing open weight models that compete with fucking Fable. We just need the industry to catch up and start manufacturing the hardware we need to run this stuff. We are so close! | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron a day ago | parent [-] | | > Compute will become the means of production > We just need the industry to catch up and start manufacturing the hardware we need to run this stuff Dude, he's saying that it won't catch up because it's part of the new means of production. Compute is the hardware. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira a day ago | parent [-] | | Why not? Demand is absurdly high, and so are the margins. The chinese are pretty good at obliterating those margins. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you want the cheapest shit grade of steel, they will sell it to you. If you want the best grade available anywhere, they will sell that to you as well. It's not a matter of the Chinese being incompetent, it's a matter of the buyer demanding the lowest price possible and/or not paying attention to what they receive. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's not a matter of the Chinese being incompetent, it's a matter of the buyer demanding the lowest price possible and/or not paying attention to what they receive. The point of enshittification is that decent products are slowly being priced out of the reach of normal humans, and eventually out of the hands of the general public, even the affluent ones. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mensetmanusman 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They won’t when citizens run AI on their phone that contradicts Xi thought | |
| ▲ | lovich a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do the Chinese models have anything to say about Tiananmen Square? Or if they can act as a surrogate girlfriend/boyfriend? Both countries are engaging in different flavors of censoring. | | |
| |
| ▲ | cma 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Anthropic was blocked from releasing Fable without any such level of incident. The head of the NSA said Mythos breached almost all of their classified systems, though it was in an intention red-team test. |
|
