zlacker

>>vforgi+(OP)
I keep seeing AI leaders looking outward and asking for 'someone else' to regulate their efforts, while they're accelerating the pace of their efforts. What's the charitable interpretation here? Elon Musk, too, has been warning of AI doom while hurriedly ramping up AI efforts at Tesla. And now he keeps going about AI doom while purchasing thousands of GPUs at Twitter to compete in the LLM space. It's like "I'm building the deathstar, pls someone stop me. I won't stop myself, duh, because other ppl are building the deathstar and obviously I must get there first!"

>>shrimp+QB1
Yeah, it's an arms race, and OpenAI does stand to lose. But this is a prisoner's dilemma situation. OpenAI can shut themselves down, but that doesn't fix the problem of someone creating a dangerous situation, as everyone else will keep going.

The only way to actually stop it is to get everyone to stop at once, via regulation. Otherwise, stopping by yourself is just a unilaterally bad move.

That's the charitable explanation, at least. These days I don't trust anything Musk says at face value, but I do think that AI is driving society off a cliff and we need to find a way to pump the breaks.

>>diputs+dE1
> The only way to actually stop it is to get everyone to stop at once, via regulation. Otherwise, stopping by yourself is just a unilaterally bad move.

How will that work across national boundaries? If AI is as dangerous as some claim, the cat is already out of the bag. Regardless of any licensing stateside, there are plenty of countries who are going to want to have AI capability available to them - some very well-resourced for the task, like China.