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 -
Beijing Pushes for AI Regulation - A campaign to control generative AI raises questions about the future of the industry in China.
/r/singularity has already suggested that any purported AI regulations coming from China are just a ruse to lull the US into a false sense of security, and that in reality China will continue pushing full steam ahead on AI research regardless of what they might say.
Anyway the main reason I'm posting this is to discuss the merits of the zero-regulation position on AI. I've yet to hear a convincing argument for why it's a good idea, and it puzzles me that so many people who allegedly assign a high likelihood to AI x-risk are also in favor of zero regulation. I know I've asked this question at least once before, in a sub-thread about a year ago, but I can't recall what sorts of responses I got. I'd like to make this a toplevel post to bring in a wider variety of perspectives.
The basic argument is just: let's grant that there's a non-trivial probability of AI causing (or being able to cause) a catastrophic disaster in the near- to medium-term. Then, like many other dangerous things like guns, nukes, certain industrial chemicals, and so forth, it should be legally regulated.
The response is that we can't afford to slow progress, because China and Russia won't slow down and if they get AGI first then they'll conquer us. Ok, maybe. But we can still make significant progress on AI capabilities research even if its use and deployment is heavily regulated. It would just become the exclusive purview of the government, instead of private entities. This is how we handle nukes now. We recognize the importance of having a nuclear arsenal for deterrence, but we don't want people to just develop nukes whenever they want - we try to limit it to a small number of recognized state actors (at least in principle).
The next move is to say, well if the government has AGI and we don't then they'll just oppress us forever, so we need our own AGI in order to be able to fight back. This is one of the arguments in favor of expansive gun rights: the citizenry needs to be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. I think this is a pretty bad argument in the gun rights contexts, and I think it's about as bad in the AI context. If the government is truly dedicated to putting down a rebellion, then a well regulated militia isn't going to stop them. You might have guns, but military has more guns, and their guns are bigger. Even if you have AGI, you have to remember that the government also has AGI, in addition to vastly more compute, and control of the majority of existing infrastructure and supply lines. Even an ASI probably can't violate the conservation of matter - it needs atoms to get things done, and you're competing with hostile ASIs for those same atoms. A cadre of freedom fighters standing up to the evil empire with open source models just strikes me as naive.
I think the next move at this point might be something like, well we're on track to develop ASI and its capabilities will be so godlike and will transform reality in such a fundamental way that none of this reasoning about physical logistics really applies, we'll probably transcend the whole notion of "government" at that point anyway. But then why would it really matter how much we regulate right now? Why does it matter which machine the AI god gets instantiated on first? Please walk me through the specifics of the scenario you're envisioning and what your concerns are. At that point it seems like we either have to hope that the AI god is benevolent, in which case we'll be fine either way, or it won't be, in which case we're all screwed. But it's hard to imagine such an entity being "owned" by any one human or group of humans.
TL;DR I don't understand what we have to lose by locking up future AI developments in military facilities, except for the personal profits of some wealthy VCs.
The way I see it, there's simply no way to meaningfully prevent AI developments. The level of coordination and authoritarianism necessary is simply beyond the ability of human society as it exists. Our only shot of survival is that the doomers are wrong and the alignment problem is actually easy to solve or isn't a problem at all, or perhaps for some unforeseen reason, AGI and ASI are actually impossible to create. So all we can do is to let the chips fall where they may and party until the lights go out.
If it turns out that the lights do go out, then we want that final party to be the best party ever, the culmination of all of human civilization. I want the final experiences of the final humans to have ever lived to be worthy of that position, worthy of the billions and billions of people who were born, lived, suffered, and died to carry us to that point. And the more we develop AI in the meanwhile before the lights go out, the better those final experiences will be. And the fewer restrictions there are for AI development, more everyday laymen will be able to come closer to experiencing that zenith of human civilization before we're all snuffed out. It'd be a shame if only Musk and Bezos were privy to the best party that has and will ever exist in human existence.
If it turns out that the lights don't go out, then the accelerated progress in AI helps to ensure a more prosperous future, since it matters quite a bit how quickly we develop these things. If we can get AI that cures cancer, it matters to millions and millions of people whether we do it this year or next year. Or even if it's something more minor like AI being able to create better tailor-made programs to help people lose weight, getting people to a healthy weight this year is much better than doing it next year, in terms of real lives saved beyond just quality of life. And regulation seems likely to delay the progress of tech that could produce benefits to people like this.
A lot of the effective altruist types seem to be saying we should all stay home instead of enjoying the party because there is a small chance the punch is poisoned. I'm willing to take that risk. Staying home sucks and the party looks way more fun.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem isn’t preventing them. As you say it’s impossible more or less. My concern with the over-emphasis on creating safety rules is that it almost guarantees that the AGI will be built in secret by people unconcerned with safety or worse wanting to use it for military or other aggressive purposes. This is the part I don’t see talked about much— whoever creates the first AGI will shape it to a large degree. And if that person is not “aligned” himself, then the ease of solving the alignment problem doesn’t actually matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link