| ▲ | ashleyn 13 hours ago |
| How do we stop china and russia from developing it? How come nobody seems to be talking about the obvious international treaty that would be necessary to actually ban superintelligence from being developed? At least we can deliberate some kind of enforcement mechanism in the process... |
|
| ▲ | cwillu 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Plenty of people are discussing that. |
|
| ▲ | mcv 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| By international agreement, obviously. There are tons of international agreements to regulate all sorts of things. It's generally a pretty good way to prevent a race to the bottom. Or in this case, a potential race to the end of the world. |
| |
| ▲ | mdp2021 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > to the end of the world Or, if things go well, ending a long very bad chapter. | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would China - or worse, Russia - sign any treaty with the US that'd make them worse off if they actually follow through? | | |
| ▲ | dragonelite 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The biggest problem is that the US has shown not trustable when it comes to treaty. You can have a treaty with the US but the US can just use Israel or some other proxy to do the advance research and development for them.. | |
| ▲ | mcv 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How would it make them worse off? If everybody agrees that AI is a threat to humanity, but also a possible edge over rivals, then the threat should be enough reason to get everybody to agree. There are international agreements on tons of things that work the same way. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If everybody agree[d] that AI is a threat to humanity Which would be either very difficult or very ironical, given that realizing that humanity is a threat to humanity precedes that. |
| |
| ▲ | 1over137 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why would they trust the US to honour anything they sign? Look how Trump has ignored the trade deal he signed with Canada. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | x312 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| MIRI has one: https://intelligence.org/2026/05/12/summary-an-international... |
|
| ▲ | mitxela 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Irrelevant. Let them - it brings negative value. |
|
| ▲ | camgunz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Two things I would say. One: nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI. Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP. It's an extension of the policy that's made us dependent on Chinese labor and manufacturing: win on the economics by any means necessary, wait for the other producers to die, enshittify (extract geopolitical concessions, in this case). |
| |
| ▲ | mdp2021 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > One: nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful A number of non adequately reliable actors owning "the bomb" and a number of threatened actors increasingly wanting "the bomb". Not really. | | |
| ▲ | foolin 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is relative to something like every nation owning nuclear weapons by 1960 and civil wars usually beginning with a nuclear strike by a standing government. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nuclear proliferation is not proper in context. The bill in question in the submission is not about preserving a status quo, it is about banning the technology. A ban on technology results in underground research, migration of intellectuals, monopolies, seething parties... | | |
| ▲ | camgunz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The bill doesn't ban it. It pauses it until a regulatory body and processes are established. That seems pretty reasonable. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Explain «Banning Artificial Superintelligence so no person or entity [etc.]». Or you think that «Advanced AI development» does not imply attempting the achievement of Intelligence? | | |
| ▲ | camgunz an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't think working on LLMs is the same as working on superintelligence (personally I don't think superintelligence is on the table, but whatever) |
|
| |
| ▲ | foolin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I didn't say the challenges would be the same.. You just indicated they were worthwhile for anyone who believes the anthropic principle is why they haven't seen a world with no nuclear treaties decades later. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | graemep 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI. Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems. A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed. | | |
| ▲ | camgunz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | After over 80 years since the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons, and no one's used one on another country since. If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious. | | |
| ▲ | graemep 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point is that it has worked for nuclear weapons because there are deterrents to using them. The acknowledged nuclear powers have all pledged to only use them in self defence. No one is going to develop AI and not use it. | | |
| ▲ | camgunz an hour ago | parent [-] | | Countries use nuclear power too. The reason they don't launch nukes at the drop of a hat is MAD. I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | skeledrew 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; I'm assuming your bar of success takes in account that 8-9 nation states have nukes. So it follows that 8-9 nation states should have ASI. | | |
| ▲ | camgunz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No I think it's fine for 9 countries to have existing models and to coordinate development with each other, which is the general outline of all NPTs. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | neonstatic 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh, that's easy. Bernie will pick 11 volunteers and together they will be dropped off behind enemy lines. Let's call them "the Dirty Dozen". They will capture the evil bastards who violated American law outside of US borders (that's just evil) and bring them to Justice™ (Impossible is nothing. Call 1-800-JUSTICE. Conditions apply). > the obvious international treaty That's even easier. We just take the international treaty on cloud computing as a base and... |
| |
| ▲ | camgunz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is an arms race is bad for everyone. "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but I do know WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" type of stuff. |
|
|
| ▲ | moojacob 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Make it international law and bomb anyone who doesn’t comply |
