This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think most governments have similar incentives for, well, aligning AI to be powerful enough to succeed at its tasks, but not so powerful as to be uncontrollable.
AI is useful for intergovernmental conflict. More powerful AI is more useful for intergovernmental conflict.
Nuclear weapons are useful for intergovernmental conflict, but the trendline in government development, deployment, and research has cut away from more powerful nuclear weapons.
Mutually assured destruction doesn't hold for AI, and recently in the nuclear doctrine there have been escalation in defense tech that indeed indicate states would like to have dominance in the area.
Sure it does. AI, as currently constituted, is more vulnerable to MAD than governmental bodies, not less.
There's a difference between dominance in nuclear weapons and more powerful nuclear weapons.
This isn't true. MAD works because of second strike capabilities, there is no AI second strike.
Dominance in nuclear doesn't scale the way dominance in AI scales. You don't get better at world dominance by developing much stronger or numerous nuclear weapons than it takes to obliterate your rivals. AI capabilities continuously enable dominance of your rivals. If your AI is smarter it can defeat your rivals cybersecurity, build more efficient weapons and design better contingencies. A sufficient power gap in AI capabilities could make a conflict look as one sided as Britain with the maxim gun vs natives armed with wooden spears.
You don't necessarily need second strike if you have launch on warning.
And this is why we will never have an AI that becomes more powerful than the US government wants it to be. You see, the US has had a continuous advantage in AI technology over its enemies since the 1950s, with an escalating advantage in the 1980s. Over the past four decades of continuous advantage, it has continually dominated its rivals, and will use its continuing edge to retard hostile AI development to exactly the level of development that it deems acceptable. This also means that the US will be able to safely stop developing AI well before reaching the area where AI is dangerous, since it can simply decide to retard the progress of hostile AIs using its considerable AI capability advantage in such a way as to leave its own AI capabilities considerably more powerful. You're already living in the world with the Maxim Gun, it's just not polite to advertise it.
Or...perhaps an advantage in AI isn't everything.
This doesn't make any sense. America has stayed ahead in ai development by just developing it faster, this does not in any way imply the ability to flick an off switch. They'd need to be at the point over being able to overthrow the CCP to do this. It's just another form of one world government.
I agree that an edge in AI does not translate over to dominating your rivals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link