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.