Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Perhaps I am too cynical but the call for government coordination seems like an obvious attempt to build themselves a moat in a largely moatless space. My own experience has been the cost of model switching is near 0. Approximately all the agents, skills, whatever I've used in my job work pretty seamlessly for any of the underlying models. Some have their quirks but essentially all of them are good enough.
"We the current frontier mousetrap makers think it should be ILLEGAL for anyone to build a better mousetrap faster than we can, for the good of humanity."
I'm still not sure I follow. I don't deny that individuals can come to have aligned interests due to their membership in a group. Legal or socially permissible discrimination against members of a demographic is one way this has happened historically. How does that get you to a demographic theory of responsibility though?
If a woman suffragette commits a bombing is a woman anti-suffragette also partly responsible because she is a woman? Is a man suffragette responsible because he's aligned with the woman, even if he otherwise had no part in or knowledge of it? How abstract can a group be such that we can judge members by the actions of other members?
- Prev
- Next

Because any regulatory regime is likely to impose costs that they can bear but competitors may not be able to. Whatever the "verifiable, effective mechanism for coordinated pacing" is it will not be free to implement. If they are serious about their commitments, they can always go slower voluntarily. Nobody has a gun to their head telling them to improve as fast as possible.
There doesn't have to be someone today. There may be someone(s) in the future. OpenAI was far ahead in the AI space, until they weren't. I know of no reason why some other company couldn't come along and supplant both of them.
I don't really see how this is signalling giving up their lead. Giving it up to who?
More options
Context Copy link