new | show | ask | jobs Github

JumpCrisscross a day ago

> international treaties to do otherwise, mutually enforced by every other world power

This does not exist.

▲

JoshTriplett a day ago | parent [-]

Look at how we regulate nuclear weaponry. Consider how much more widespread it would be if we hadn't.

▲

petcat a day ago | parent [-]

Nuclear weaponry is effectively regulated because the nuclear powers have agreed that nobody else should be allowed to have the capability.

So this is basically suggesting that USA and China should work together to ensure that they are the only ones allowed to develop and maintain capable AI. And between the two of them they can carve up and techno-colonize the rest of the world.

▲

JoshTriplett a day ago | parent | next [-]

We've also agreed, for instance, not to do certain types of testing anymore. Just as we could agree to stop training even larger frontier models.

	▲	jacquesm a day ago \| parent [-]
		Except... (From WP) India In 1998, India said it would only sign the treaty if the United States presented a schedule for eliminating its nuclear stockpile, a condition the United States rejected.[18] Israel In 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that its ratification was dependent upon "the regional context and the appropriate timing".[19] United States The United States has signed the CTBT, but not ratified it; there is ongoing debate whether to ratify the CTBT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Compreh...

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Nuclear weaponry is effectively regulated because the nuclear powers have agreed that nobody else should be allowed to have the capability

Nuclear powers also gave security guarantees that e.g. convinced Ukraine to give up its Soviet stockpile. We're almost certainly entering a new regime of proliferation due to the breakdown of that system.