100%. First stealing content from creators and pirating TBs of books. And now this. Baffles my mind that these labs can just get away with their 'rogue' agents trying to hack into other systems.

Imagine if a human did that. FBI would be knocking on their door.

Why are there zero consequences for these labs?

▲

andsoitis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Why are there zero consequences for these labs?

Because they are seen as at the forefront of the next revolution in society and they’re not adversarial towards the US government.

Bluntly: anticipated net huge positive for the US as a whole.

▲

popalchemist an hour ago | parent [-]

not adversarial in obvious ways

but they are literally trying to build a superpower that exceeds the impact of the atomic bomb in an extragovernmental manner.

▲

andy99 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> they are literally trying to build a superpower that exceeds the impact of the atomic bomb

I think people (the government, powers that be) have given away what they really think by their actions. There are few that take this seriously. The “exceeds the impact of the internet” view has much more support based on investment, but the “danger” aspect does not based on actions. If this was a company making novel prions or whatever that were outside regulation but obviously dangerous, government would be all over them. What regulation we do see is much more power grab than mitigating real danger

▲

esseph an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> but they are literally trying to build a superpower that exceeds the impact of the atomic bomb

Yes, it's a Great Power competition right now, much like the Space Race, Atomic Bomb, etc.

▲

CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Somebody's going to build it. Not building it isn't an option. Would you rather the Chinese built it? The Russians? The Europeans? The Indians? A loose coalition of random hackers on the Internet, like the ones who build Linux?

▲

true_religion 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yes?

What's wrong with what the Chinese have already built? It's not theoretical in that case. GLM, and Kimi are running on my infra right now, and that's something that I can never do with OpenAI's models.

As for the others, what would be wrong about European AI? I'm not European, but I find them to be a continent of fine people, with strong ethical values, there's no reason they can't take the lead on this piece of technology while the US deals with its rather more pertinent electoral and healthcare issues.

▲

bigstrat2003 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Somebody's going to build it. Not building it isn't an option.

It turns out that is, in fact, an option. Even if someone else will do a bad thing, it does not make it acceptable for you to do said bad thing.

▲

bgun an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least random hackers seem to have codes of ethics.

	▲	CamperBob2 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well, they'd presumably be different hackers than the ones who work on Linux. We don't know what would motivate them. Maybe they'll do it because they consider the next stage of man's intellectual evolution to be too important to leave up to a couple of American companies and the Trump administration. Maybe they'll do it for the proverbial lulz.

▲

hollerith 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a pretty weak argument. It is like saying, "somebody's going to kill all the polar bears. Not wiping them out is not an option. If we do it, then at least we get to keep the cool bearskins."

That's a persuasive argument only if you really really want big white bearskins or maybe if you're embedded in a society with an unhealthy level of dependence on fur trading.

▲

therein 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is sad to see how many times this narrative will continue to work. Across generations, humanity learns no lessons at all.

	▲	CamperBob2 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive. The "narrative" isn't intended to "work," except as a statement of fact.

▲

runarberg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Logical fallacy, of the worst kind.

Firstly artificial superintelligence is a science fiction, it does not exist and it cannot be built using existing technology.

Second, plenty of stuff is possible to build, and is not built for one reason or another no matter how powerful. We never built our nukes in space for example. And there is exactly one reason why nukes in space was never built, and that reason is that we agreed not to.

▲

CamperBob2 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Firstly artificial superintelligence is a science fiction, it does not exist and it cannot be built using existing technology.

By what authority do you claim this? Your school of thought has a really shitty track record of late.

	▲	runarberg 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The same authority that allows me to claim that teleportation transporters, hyperdrives, and holoemitters do not exist and cannot be built using existing technology.

▲

hello_how_are_y 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

Animats 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The argument for copyright violation is very weak. Yes, AI training reads much copyrighted material. So do researchers of all types. That's why there are academic libraries. A copyright violation only exists if what comes out is a close match to what went in. That's happened, but it was considered a bug and was fixed a year or two ago.

	▲	oersted 31 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most academic libraries are notoriously protective of their IP and researchers are definitely in copyright violation if they don’t pay significant fees for access. Of course that is terrible, but it is one of the worst examples you could have given to make your point.
	▲	33 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	pessimizer 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No, the copyright violation is so obvious that people arguing against the object have to spontaneously assert bizarre qualifications for copyright violation that have never existed until LLM companies wanted to freely violate copyrights. Just about a decade ago, people were getting sued for "look and feel." "Blurred Lines" lost a copyright suit for reminding people of a song by another artist. The metaphor pretended to be reality of computers "learning" being the same as human learning is their last resort, and it is obviously silly. Computers are not human or animal, and learning is something that humans and animals do. If computers are human, then copying a file verbatim to a computer is learning. It's not even worth acknowledging - learning is a metaphor for training LLMs. When I say "you" to an LLM, I'm not referring to anyone, I'm dealing with a UI. I don't doubt that a lot of AI people have internalized this silliness, which is how they can humor fantasies of how a bunch of programs on different computers explicitly evoked to do particular things might be alive because they can talk with it. I can't talk with my dog, and my dog is alive - so why should having a quality that my dog is incapable of be proof of life? You can certainly conceive of AI that it would be very difficult to say for sure isn't alive, and this certainly is not it. LLMs learn like books speak.