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?

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.

> 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.

At least random hackers seem to have codes of ethics.

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.

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

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.