I think the other fellas covered it but are 4 functions a broad range? My scientific calculator does way more than that. My graphing even more. It's too open ended. It would become one of those laws that's just used to prosecute whoever they want and not one that anybody could tell you definitively if you'll be violating or not
Oh, that's easy. Bernie will pick 11 volunteers and together they will be dropped off behind enemy lines. Let's call them "the Dirty Dozen". They will capture the evil bastards who violated American law outside of US borders (that's just evil) and bring them to Justice™ (Impossible is nothing. Call 1-800-JUSTICE. Conditions apply).
> the obvious international treaty
That's even easier. We just take the international treaty on cloud computing as a base and...
The point is an arms race is bad for everyone. "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but I do know WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones" type of stuff.
The Cold War was an arms race that gave us wonderful things: amazing technologies we still use today (GPS, the Internet) and the collapse of the soviet union.
"Were we on the brink of that thing that we already did in Japan and nothing happened a few times? Oh my god, I need to hide in a cave and never do anything outside again"
Two things I would say. One: nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI.
Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP. It's an extension of the policy that's made us dependent on Chinese labor and manufacturing: win on the economics by any means necessary, wait for the other producers to die, enshittify (extract geopolitical concessions, in this case).
This is relative to something like every nation owning nuclear weapons by 1960 and civil wars usually beginning with a nuclear strike by a standing government.
Nuclear proliferation is not proper in context. The bill in question in the submission is not about preserving a status quo, it is about banning the technology.
A ban on technology results in underground research, migration of intellectuals, monopolies, seething parties...
I didn't say the challenges would be the same.. You just indicated they were worthwhile for anyone who believes the anthropic principle is why they haven't seen a world with no nuclear treaties decades later.
LLMs are either a toy if they are not reliable and a mockery if not actually intelligent; to make them intelligent, to achieve Intelligence, is what Sanders proposed to make illegal. What we are striving to do is to achieve Intelligence - it cannot be different.
> nuclear non-proliferation has been pretty successful; we can use a similar model for AI.
Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems.
A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed.
After over 80 years since the US used nuclear weapons against Japan, less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons, and no one's used one on another country since. If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
My point is that it has worked for nuclear weapons because there are deterrents to using them. The acknowledged nuclear powers have all pledged to only use them in self defence. No one is going to develop AI and not use it.
Countries use nuclear power too. The reason they don't launch nukes at the drop of a hat is MAD. I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI.
> I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI.
Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matter what kind.
> less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons
Counting countries is plenty deceptive. Population is the real metric, China, India, Pakistan are all nuclear, everything added together, 50% of the world's population lives in nuke-capable countries. There are US nukes stationed in various European countries and Turkey, I didn't count them although I should have.
> If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
That "achievement" is even more deceptive. The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world, poverty is the real "achiever" here but I don't think that's something worth bragging about.
> 50% of the world's population lives in nuke-capable countries.
Are you saying you prefer Pakistan getting nukes over India's population doubling since 1975? That seems silly. Also this is only because of China and India, so this has been true and fine for over half a century.
> The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world
Pakistan is poor, Norway is rich. How can you possibly make this argument?
> Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP.
I don't know, but it's also what Kevin Rudd thinks [0]. He was Australia's prime minister (twice, lol), Australia's foreign minister, a foreign service officer working in China, and the author of a dissertation on Xi Jinping.
By international agreement, obviously. There are tons of international agreements to regulate all sorts of things. It's generally a pretty good way to prevent a race to the bottom. Or in this case, a potential race to the end of the world.
The biggest problem is that the US has shown not trustable when it comes to treaty. You can have a treaty with the US but the US can just use Israel or some other proxy to do the advance research and development for them..
How would it make them worse off? If everybody agrees that AI is a threat to humanity, but also a possible edge over rivals, then the threat should be enough reason to get everybody to agree.
There are international agreements on tons of things that work the same way.
Developers are mostly fine, they are already buried in work and won't stop to question long and hard enough. It's the managers and sci-fi grifters that make this entire topic toxic, by assuming no limits should apply to them.
and farmers too! Did you know they just steal the resources they need to grow our food? They don't pay anything for sunlight or air! Who's investigating them?
Man, it would be awesome if I could tell my boss “No, I don’t want to go to prison for 20 years” when they ask me if some magical AI thing can be done.
The HN title has been editorialized... and techno-oligarchs really, really hate Sanders.
The bill isn't about using LLMs to merge your pull requests, it's about discouraging people or companies who might be working on their own private Manhattan Projects from intentionally trying to create the impact equivalent of nuclear weapons, or "Artificial Superintelligence".
We're getting closer than not to an A(S)I arms race. Sanders has lived his entire life in that, and I've been smelling it for a while, too.
And members of the Dems give further gifts to the opponents.
Question: how aware are they?
Given the missed "intellectual solidity" of the submitted proposal, there is a chance that their effective support to the other party is not conscious.
And in terms of civilization, the confrontation is downgraded to ventral partitism, hysterical: "not like it" vs "really want it or do not mind".
The USA should finally revise their system and create more parties. It is absurd that power be left bouncing on the rhythm of "never this, we'll pick whatever that".
I assume the US will also ban the use for foreign models as part of this.
Pausing development means the people with the currently most advanced models are shielded from competition, especially if foreign competition is not allowed.
A new agency will impose heavy regulation which can easily be twisted to favour incumbents.
This person has missed reading classes, is dishonest or just stupid. The law proposal bans research on ASI, and sets penalties for those who transgress the ban. Seems quite obvious to me. The law that bans clandestine efforts to build nuclear weapons is not "proposing to sentence nuclear physicists to 20 years in prison".
(Btw, "up to" doesn't mean "to". Second comprehension mistake in a few lines- I bet all current generation of LLMs have better understanding.)
Which is exactly the same as the submission's post, obvious interpretations of "AI" aside: how can we implement Intelligence without enabling superintelligence at the same time?!
And of course we must implement Intelligence, finally: we have implemented further morons, of which we already had plentiful abundance - already the LLM stage must be corrected!
We might agree or disagree with the statement that AGI and ASI are dangerous (economically, societally, existentially) and research needs to be paused- which means making their development (temporarily) illegal. If you accept that it is the case, though, you need to accept that there are penalties for those who violate the law.
What you wrote makes no sense in the chain: "If you accepted that C were a crime than C should be sanctioned" - this is not the point. Who argues against that non-matter?
You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», and you were replied that what we are doing in the LLM direction cannot be other than researching ASI. And you were told: and we must, because we cannot be contented with morons.
> You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI»,
No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at least for some time. Agreee, disagree, I don't care. It's not proposing to jail people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past. It's proposing to make further research illegal, therefore imposes penalties on those who would illegally pursue it- be they researchers, managers, financers, movie villains, companies, etc.
How can you interpret «developers and researchers working on advanced AI» as «people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past» - nobody in their sanity would understand that.
Or are you complaining against the brevity of the title - knowing that we have to fit the title into a short space?
There are really no possible misunderstandings in the submission.
81 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 19.3 ms ] threadObviously it's not the intent of the bill to jail calculator makers. So the bill should be written to make it clear exactly what it's criminalizing.
> the obvious international treaty
That's even easier. We just take the international treaty on cloud computing as a base and...
I can play that game, too.
Two, China's major motivation for developing competitive AI isn't to reap the benefits from an an important new technology. It's to undermine the economic development of the West and make them even more dependent upon the CCP. It's an extension of the policy that's made us dependent on Chinese labor and manufacturing: win on the economics by any means necessary, wait for the other producers to die, enshittify (extract geopolitical concessions, in this case).
A number of non adequately reliable actors owning "the bomb" and a number of threatened actors increasingly wanting "the bomb". Not really.
A ban on technology results in underground research, migration of intellectuals, monopolies, seething parties...
Or you think that «Advanced AI development» does not imply attempting the achievement of Intelligence?
I'm assuming your bar of success takes in account that 8-9 nation states have nukes. So it follows that 8-9 nation states should have ASI.
Development of nuclear weapons has continued, and a lot of effort goes into developing delivery systems.
A number of countries have acquired nuclear weapons over the years: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea. More countries have kept their options open and could develop nuclear weapons if needed.
Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matter what kind.
Counting countries is plenty deceptive. Population is the real metric, China, India, Pakistan are all nuclear, everything added together, 50% of the world's population lives in nuke-capable countries. There are US nukes stationed in various European countries and Turkey, I didn't count them although I should have.
> If you don't think that's an incredible achievement you're unserious.
That "achievement" is even more deceptive. The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world, poverty is the real "achiever" here but I don't think that's something worth bragging about.
Are you saying you prefer Pakistan getting nukes over India's population doubling since 1975? That seems silly. Also this is only because of China and India, so this has been true and fine for over half a century.
> The reason Africa doesn't have nukes is their poverty, ditto for the rest of the no-nukes world
Pakistan is poor, Norway is rich. How can you possibly make this argument?
Is this really how most Americans think?
In fact, nearly everything is perceived as tribalistic us-vs-them team sports now, including politics.
[0]: https://archive.ph/VzJKU
Or, if things go well, ending a long very bad chapter.
There are international agreements on tons of things that work the same way.
Which would be either very difficult or very ironical, given that realizing that humanity is a threat to humanity precedes that.
Let's just slap 20 years on the scifi grifters too, please.
That would be?
Speaking of which, doesn’t this bill die after midterms anyway?
So this is just the bonus round where every inane idea gets introduced for the headline before being reset
The bill isn't about using LLMs to merge your pull requests, it's about discouraging people or companies who might be working on their own private Manhattan Projects from intentionally trying to create the impact equivalent of nuclear weapons, or "Artificial Superintelligence".
We're getting closer than not to an A(S)I arms race. Sanders has lived his entire life in that, and I've been smelling it for a while, too.
Question: how aware are they?
Given the missed "intellectual solidity" of the submitted proposal, there is a chance that their effective support to the other party is not conscious.
And in terms of civilization, the confrontation is downgraded to ventral partitism, hysterical: "not like it" vs "really want it or do not mind".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection
Pausing development means the people with the currently most advanced models are shielded from competition, especially if foreign competition is not allowed.
A new agency will impose heavy regulation which can easily be twisted to favour incumbents.
(Btw, "up to" doesn't mean "to". Second comprehension mistake in a few lines- I bet all current generation of LLMs have better understanding.)
Which is exactly the same as the submission's post, obvious interpretations of "AI" aside: how can we implement Intelligence without enabling superintelligence at the same time?!
And of course we must implement Intelligence, finally: we have implemented further morons, of which we already had plentiful abundance - already the LLM stage must be corrected!
You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», and you were replied that what we are doing in the LLM direction cannot be other than researching ASI. And you were told: and we must, because we cannot be contented with morons.
No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at least for some time. Agreee, disagree, I don't care. It's not proposing to jail people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past. It's proposing to make further research illegal, therefore imposes penalties on those who would illegally pursue it- be they researchers, managers, financers, movie villains, companies, etc.
Or are you complaining against the brevity of the title - knowing that we have to fit the title into a short space?
There are really no possible misunderstandings in the submission.