zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
I really don't understand the national security argument. If you really do fear some fundamental breakthrough in AI from China, what's cheaper, $500 billion to rush to get there first, or spending a few billion (and likely much less) in basic research in physics, materials science, and electronics, mixed with a little bit of espionage, mixed with improving the electric grid and eliminating (or greatly reducing) fossil fuels?

Ultimately, the breakthrough in AI is going to either come from eliminating bottlenecks in computing such that we can simulate many more neurons much more cheaply (in other words, 2025-level technology scaled up is not going to really be necessary or sufficient), or some fundamental research discovery such as a new transformer paradigm. In any case, it feels like these are theoretical discoveries that, whoever makes them first, the other "side" can trivially steal or absorb the information.

>>biimug+jN1
It's fascinating how most people still don't get it.

ASI is basically a god. This is the ultimate solution (or problem). It will push us to the singularity, and create an utopia or drive humanity to extinction. Imagine someone who is so smart that would win every single nobel prize available, and make multiple discoveries in a matter of a year. And now multiply this person's intelligence by 100 (most likely more, but 100 is already hard enough to grasp). There's no point in investing in anything else. An investment in ASI is an investment in everything (could be a bad one though, depending on the outcome).

The government is banking on being able to control it, which is also pretty funny. It's like a pet hamster thinking they can dictate what a human does.

>>Valaka+Aq2
This type of comment is another thing I don't quite understand -- as if no one but AI proponents have heard of the Singularity. "There's no point in investing in anything else" is a very presumptive, fact-free idea. It's just begging the question. Many promising false starts have occurred in this area. Predictions from technologists such as Kurzweil have been wrong more than they've been right.