What is appealing about this fatalisitc fallacy? I keep seeing this pop up. Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist. Why is this different? Go try to buy a tank and drive it into Manhattan. If we can prohibit that why can't we prohibit irresponsible AI development and deployment?

▲

hnlmorg 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Because greed.

The examples for the dangers of AI is always comparisons with tools designed to destroy (which is understandable). But the problem with AI is it has the potential to create wealth for investors.

Thus those who have the opportunity to change course also have a conflict of interest in making that decision.

▲

Hamuko 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist.

Philip Morris International? Monsanto? DuPont?

▲

austhrow743 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wrong person. Im just correcting the other commenters trade off problem. I don’t have a stance on if ai will lead to the destruction of humanity, only that if it does then any one ai company can’t change that by not making new ai advancements themselves.

▲

lukewarm707 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't matter what others do. You are responsible for your own actions.

Democratic societies have expressed a will for people to have inviolable rights, such that you may not appeal at will to the 'greater good/consequences' to harm others. It is a rejection of consequentialism.

Anthropic is in error for endorsing this logic. Every big trial reaffirms it since Nuremberg, you are responsible for the act you commit and your intent, and not what would or would not have happened otherwise.

Only under authority these ai companies do not have, would someone seriously consider harming the innocent as a lesser evil.

If you work for an AI company and you can't work safely, you must stop working.

▲

digitaltrees 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s that last fatalistic sentence that I am responding to. Why is it persuasive to think if a company can and will build AI that might kill everyone then it’s unavoidable. Soviet bans lots of things.

	▲	jrowen 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the closest analogue here is the nuclear bomb. I do think there was a certain point where it became "inevitable." I don't think society has ever prevented a technology that was known to be within reach from being developed. In this case you don't even need the most powerful state-level actors. Open source capabilities are only a short timespan behind frontier labs. At some point basically every individual will have access from the comfort of their own home. I don't think "just make it illegal" is going to save us, that doesn't make me feel safe anyway. They may try that first because it's easy - create a regulatory body, sign some legislation, problem solved! [george-bush-mission-accomplished.jpg] But at this point I feel like some kind of Battlestar Galactica scenario is most likely - hopefully not quite as existential - but it will take a collective reaction to a traumatic event (a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki). Technical rather than (or in addition to) legal measures will be taken, like network partitioning and hardening. This is everyone's problem whether we like it or not. (I'm not saying this "fatalism" should be used as an excuse by anyone working for any of these companies, it should give them pause that any blood shed would still be squarely on their hands, but as an observer, people are gonna keep pushing until shit hits the fan. [jeff-goldblum-jurassic-park.gif] It's also not really about whether it's "appealing" or not, it's just trying to predict and anticipate different likelihoods...)

▲

trhway an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> ai will lead to the destruction of humanity ... any one ai company can’t change that by not making new ai advancements themselves.

That is how the BigAI leads the society to the idea of necessity to relax the anti-monopoly laws when it comes to the Big AI - the main goal of all that "AI will kill you all" hysteria.

▲

motbus3 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You have a 50/50 chance on being the most profitable company in the world but if you don't, no worries, someone else will pay for that

▲

AndrewKemendo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist

Can you please explain what you mean by this because where I’m standing extremely dangerous companies are (and have been) running the economy

Exxon comes primarily to mind

▲

digitaltrees 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you allowed to open a brothel? Or a murder for hire agency? Or a nuclear bomb manufacturing company? Or a child labor textile factory? Or sell a diesel VW golf sportwagen? Or a vaccine that hasn’t had fda clearance? Or an under capitalized insurance company? Or set up a dental practice without going to dental school?

▲

AndrewKemendo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes to all of those. In fact many of those are massive markets.

Hofs bunny ranch is a famous brothel in NV

Booz Allen makes and maintains the nuclear fleet including the Sentinel ICBM

Textiles factories are globally known to be industrial slave camps for a non trivial portion of the supply. Even worse for Mica mines.

Etc…you can fill out the rest

▲

RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Booz Allen actually makes what now? The Sentinel is still in development by Northrop Grumman and there is some program management done by Booz, no?

	▲	AndrewKemendo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You’re right on the Sentinel production, I got it confused with the Sentinel Program Management side which is massive also and who I mostly worked with. I was in their offices at some point when that program was getting built out - Very much a Office Space bobs situation.

▲

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

The appeal is personal consciencewashing.

▲

pmkary 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You dear are the most positive person I have seen in quite some time. With Earth burning in the fire of neofeudalism and unbreathable due to the smell of enshitification of everything, with people who---as a result of shit like Instagram---can no longer hold their attention enough to watch a god damn film, let alone a book; it takes quite some effort to filter the "noise" and only see the good people of corporate planting flowers and rainbows in our world.

▲

mschuster91 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Society doesn't allow dangerous companies to operate or exist

FTFY: Any self-respecting society with competent politicians.

The US has neither of that, and it shows everywhere you are looking.

> Go try to buy a tank and drive it into Manhattan. If we can prohibit that why can't we prohibit irresponsible AI development and deployment?

Because even if you had the tank, you can't make much money with it (unless you're a hitman, that is, but even for these, the payouts are measly). But if you are the surviving AI company in the usual VC playbook of "outcompete everyone else until society is completely and utterly hooked, then squeeze the customers by the balls"? The return on investment is virtually infinite. And that is what sustains the absurd valuations for all the AI companies.