> 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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

	▲	WarmWash 31 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Nuclear weapons come with the immense benefit that purifying uranium is so challenging, expensive, and difficult to hide that we don't even bother to protect the information on how to build a nuke. They also have a second benefit of being impossible to test without the whole world knowing you did. AI has no such hurdles.
	▲	defen 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| 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 an hour 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.