You operate within the "logic" of capitalism, where no other value exists but the (short term) economic one.

AI indeed goes far beyond "autocomplete" and other nonsense. But the question is, whether it's a good idea to just let the "market" run wild with it.

Short-term capital interests don't align with the public good. AI greatly scales capability, but without anything to restrain it, that implies those non-aligned interests overwhelming society's defenses, outright destroying it in the process.

The idea of rich people being some kind of benevolent caretakers, who independently and dependably foresee and manage the consequences of their actions in everybody's best interest, is laughably wrong already.

With AI, that reality gap will swallow whatever is left.

▲

Aurornis 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> You operate within the "logic" of capitalism, where no other value exists but the (short term) economic one.

I operate within the logic of how the world actually works.

Which I find infinitely more useful for practical topics like the reality of AI development in a global economy.

Fantasizing about alternative realities where all the leaders of the world unite and halt technology development without any of them secretly defecting and developing it further isn’t very useful to discuss. These things aren’t going to happen.

▲

nananana9 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You're acting like international treaties (or cartels) don't exist. Yes, these are structures where parties have incentives to defect, and we counter those by creating incentives not to, with checks and sanctions.

Additionally, you don't need all the leaders of the world to agree to anything, you only need US and China.

Additionally x2, if you agree with the common stance that China makes the vast majority of their progress by distilling US models, you don't even need them to agree to anything.

▲

Loquebantur 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The "world" isn't just what humans currently make of it. You deny the possibility of alternatives for society based on what amounts to ignorance.

Transitioning from the current "order of things" to one compatible with the existence of things like AI is a necessity, not a "fantasy".

When you imagine people as savages to be outdone in their savagery, you become one yourself. Spend more effort on finding ways not to.

	▲	Aurornis 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The "world" isn't just what humans currently make of it. You deny the possibility of alternatives for society based on what amounts to ignorance. Ignorance of what? All of the previous successful attempts where the entire world reorganized itself into a single world government? > Transitioning from the current "order of things" to one compatible with the existence of things like AI is a necessity, not a "fantasy". I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. You’re assuming it’s necessary and then making another leap to assume that being necessary means it must also be possible.

▲

sznio 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

>Fantasizing about alternative realities where all the leaders of the world unite and halt technology development without any of them secretly defecting and developing it further isn’t very useful to discuss. These things aren’t going to happen.

it has kinda worked for nuclear weapons

	▲	defen 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		"We" (Israel, probably with US assistance) assassinate "rogue" (outside of existing nuclear powers) nuclear scientists (e.g. from Iran). So to take this analogy to its conclusion you have to accept that part of the pact would be assassinating people for doing computer science research or building computer systems that will be used for AI.
	▲	Aurornis 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In the nuclear case multiple powers raced to develop it as fast as possible and as much as possible. That’s the inverse of what I said.

▲

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

The market is irrelevant. In the 28 centuries of recorded history, the human race has pursued power in it's various forms (political, military or economic), without regard to the "public good" (which is really, just a polite euphemism for the established order and those that benefit for it).

Without capitalism, you wouldn't be able to restrain AI adoption any more than the armored knights of the middle ages were able to restrain the adoption of the firearm.

▲

ford an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Capitalism isn't the most palatable economic system, it's the one that best matches the reality of nature (competition)

I think the vast majority of the rich are greedy bastards, but IMO being rich does not imply greedy bastard 100% of the time.

	▲	gilrain an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> it's the one that best matches the reality of nature (competition) This doesn't seem right: it doesn't match the history of reality, in which capitalism has repeatedly stymied rather than fostered competition.