| |
| ▲ | ultrarunner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re likely taking this too literally. OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief. What we have seen is incredible hype (justified or not), so it’s more likely just a continuation of that. | | |
| ▲ | AustinDev 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Precisely, all I hear is a bunch of cheap talk about something gravely serious, if true. I think it's much more likely that the dread these Anthropic employees are experiencing is reckoning with the fact that they may actually lose the AI race. Maybe, if they scare the regulators enough, they could lock in some regulatory capture. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Talk is indeed cheap. Thing is, while there are many historical examples of a highly organised bunch of people with a lot of resources who engage in campaigns of violence for various reasons, many such attempts fail disastrously. Furthermore, given the goal is "no really everyone stop now", this isn't something where violent direct action in e.g. the USA alone would suffice. Has to be global to work, otherwise you just change which language and timezone the disaster starts in. You'd not only need to convince the, e.g. US government that this act of terrorism shouldn't be met with lethal force and even more of the surveillance state we saw since 9/11 (and remember, lots of the people pushing AI now are already big on surveillance capitalism, and the VC money comes from the people running this very forum, so when I say "this will not go well", I kinda mean "I assume at least one person currently working at each of Meta, Alphabet, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, and Palantir are reading this thread even without any automated processes of their own to tell them about it" :P) This is a coordination problem on par with historical examples such as "Communism". Which, er, yeah. 70 years after the book was written, Russia had a short flirt with a lite form of it before it became an excuse for a series of "meet the new boss same as the old boss" who stayed around until Glasnost. This would be a really really bad thing to replicate. Both for the "new boss same as the old boss" part, and the "not actually global" part. |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief. That something is harmful to humans means you need to take extreme action? The person is already leaving a job, probably a well-paid one, doing something they generally liked, until they saw a different future. That is the "action" you apparently haven't seen yet. Not sure how it's reasonable to expect everyone who believe that AI might be involved in killing people in the future, must mean you should become a terrorist essentially. Not everyone is trying to be a hero in their life, some just want to live it out until it ends, trying to survive until then. | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I just think OP is completely wrong about what beliefs inspire what action. Anti-nuclear activists in the proliferation era would surely have put their chance of doom above 10%, and yet it was AFAIK unheard of for them to bomb nuclear supply chains. |
| |
| ▲ | kortilla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not “people getting killed”, this is “all humans”. The only other ELE for humans that could possibly be caused by other humans that has been feasible is nuclear war. And lots of blood has been shed to prevent new players from getting bombs. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Personally I'd wager humanity has a greater chance than 10% of us all dying in a huge nuclear war sometime in the future. Is the claim really that this belief cannot be taken seriously unless I somehow violently attack nuclear silos, centrifuges and similar? |
|
|
| There's a lot more than one chip fab. A while back Yudkowsky wrote that a ban would only work if was enforced by airstrikes. By a game of telephone, some people read "bomb", but there's a very big difference between "someone with a truckload of fertiliser" and "a B52": Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.
Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests, have it clear that anyone talking of arms races is a fool. That we all live or die as one, in this, is not a policy but a fact of nature. Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.
- https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no... |
