| ▲ | tptacek 2 hours ago |
| Yes, and that makes them civilly liable, not criminally. |
|
| ▲ | lelanthran an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is such a thing as criminally negligent. |
| |
|
| ▲ | eastbound 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| From "negligence" if it's a surprise, to "gross negligence" if they could predict it and didn't put barriers in place. In fact they claim their IA can end the world, so they're in charge of pretty good barriers. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Gross negligence" also does not meet the intent standard for CFAA. |
|
|
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It feels like plotting to end the world should be a crime, but maybe that's just me? |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No AI lab thinks their AI is going to end the world, just that if they don't beat the other AI labs, the other labs' AI are going to end the world, so they can't slow down their own development to be maximally safe. Hence the whole "pacing the frontier" letter. | | |
| ▲ | goatlover 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If there's a real chance (say 10% or greater) that one of the AI labs is going to end the world, then yeah it should be a crime to continue advancing the technology. A few people are potentially putting the entire world at risk without everyone else's permission, by their own p(doom) admission. I'm real skeptical about p(doom) arguments, but since they seem to believe it and they're the ones working on it, the technology should be halted. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >If there's a real chance (say 10% or greater) that one of the AI labs is going to end the world, then yeah it should be a crime to continue advancing the technology. >but since they seem to believe it and they're the ones working on it, the technology should be halted. Again, you're missing the dynamic that stopping AI development yourself doesn't mean that others' AI development will also halt, and other labs has higher P(doom) than your lab (of course!). | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Stopping yourself from committing a crime generally doesn't stop others from doing so. That's not your responsibility though. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wmorgan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not just you! Very popular position, not as popular as rule of law but we don't have to choose one or the other. Let's just go ahead and make it a crime, right away. | | |
| ▲ | louthy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is the rule of law popular in the US? I thought it had been disposed of as “an inconvenience”? At least that’s what it looks like from the rest of the world | | |
| ▲ | dpkirchner an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, I've often "joked" with my friends that were in a post-law period, at least at the federal level. | |
| ▲ | voakbasda an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Rule of law is popular everywhere, but show a place where the has not been corrupted into tyranny and despotism. I would like to live there please. | | |
| ▲ | nativeit an hour ago | parent [-] | | New Zealand, off the top of my head. If you can’t find examples, you aren’t looking. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't conspiracy to commit mass murder already a crime? And wouldn't this fit the bill if they were truly ending the world? |
|
|
