Show me a person who truly revised their priors to put forward a novel solution to AI that isn't just "do the thing that I like and that benefits me in some way". The discourse around all this is a mix of quasi-religious beliefs (pro and con) and blatant opportunism. For Dario and Sam, the solution is "give us a monopoly on this tech". For Gates, it's "create an supranational organization with unprecedented taxation and regulatory powers" - world AI police, presumably staffed by technocrats like him.

What's your take? Do the ideas put forward by Gates strike you as worth pursuing? What are the trade-offs - how can they go wrong?

▲

ryeights 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://www.pacingthefrontier.com/ https://ai-2040.com

Can you describe a method of slowing frontier AI development that you yourself would not classify as monopoly-seeking by US AI companies or power-seeking by governments and technocrats?

Limiting the development of powerful AI requires restricting free enterprise in some way, backed by the threat of force; hence, there will always be a cynical framing available.

	▲	pona-a 13 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In the case of the US AI industry, how about some stricter banking laws to forbid its current circular financing?
	▲	harimau777 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Many people would be fine with restricting free enterprise. It hasn't exactly given us great quality of life, at least in America.

▲

dgellow 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Do the ideas put forward by Gates strike you as worth pursuing? What are the trade-offs - how can they go wrong?

I agree. However, why aren’t we applying the same standard to AI technologies themselves? That doesn’t strike me as worth pursuing, the article discusses all the ways that is and will go wrong