This makes the strategy of hyping AGI fears more comprehensible,
basically, regulate some fairy dust harms superintelligent AGI could do
at some indeterminate time in the future, rather than regulating actual
harms the models can do now.
I find it kind of off-putting how the "AI alignment" community *utterly* dismisses the threat AI could pose to calcifying inequality and social stratification. This is a far more concrete concern. A world in which private/low class citizens are forever cut off from having access to truly powerful 'AGI' (understanding that LLM's are not AGI) and are only accessible to corporations and individuals who are already in power. We already have AI research companies slamming their doors shut once they are in a dominant market position despite having directly relied upon public funding and support and who are openly claiming to know what is best for us.
It is just so obvious that Sam Altman is acting like any other CEO does, that OpenAI is operating like any other company does. Which is fine, but these are not the people I want pretending to be acting in my own interest, especially with how transparently this concern stops the moment it threatens to meaningfully interfere with their bottom line. People in the rationalist sphere are being duped by another charlatan who is parroting the correct phrases.
It's not esoteric enough for the priesthood.
Some of the EU regulations are just about social manipulation, which it seems like, chatGPT and it's relatives would be great for. Practically, it's probably hard to differentiate between an AI that makes a great customer service chatbot and bot that is socially manipulative. At least, doing so would be hard and something companies selling the the tech don't want to bother with.
I'm so excited for the FDA to regulate the shit out of AI as medical devices, driving costs way up so that only those with A+++ health insurance can benefit from these new tools.
/s
Altman is cringe… But what’s even more cringe so are those people in
the AI community saying the EU regulation is about stopping doomsday or
some shit. In reality world however, it’s more boring, like protecting
EU citizens’ privacy, making data use clearer, and figuring out new ways
to tax potential earnings from data collection. But of course, “AI’s
gonna kill us all, we gotta regulate” or “Fuck the EU! AI’s the new god
and it’s gotta move faster” sounds way more exciting to people. This
will be the same thing as when the italian ban happened… it was so
fucking cringe… why can’t people accept that the boring answer is the
right one…
Altman said under the way the proposed law is currently drafted, both
ChatGPT and the large language model GPT-4 could be designated
high-risk. This would require the company to comply with certain
requirements. According to Time, the OpenAI CEO said “If we can comply,
we will, and if we can’t, we’ll cease operating…”
“Yes, our product causes harm, but you can’t pass regulations saying
we have to minimize harm! Then we might not be able to offer our product
to as many people!”
Like um, isn’t that the entire point of the regulations? If you can’t
figure out how to make your product less harmful then it’s actually good
if you have to stop doing business, no?
This makes the strategy of hyping AGI fears more comprehensible, basically, regulate some fairy dust harms superintelligent AGI could do at some indeterminate time in the future, rather than regulating actual harms the models can do now.
Altman is cringe… But what’s even more cringe so are those people in the AI community saying the EU regulation is about stopping doomsday or some shit. In reality world however, it’s more boring, like protecting EU citizens’ privacy, making data use clearer, and figuring out new ways to tax potential earnings from data collection. But of course, “AI’s gonna kill us all, we gotta regulate” or “Fuck the EU! AI’s the new god and it’s gotta move faster” sounds way more exciting to people. This will be the same thing as when the italian ban happened… it was so fucking cringe… why can’t people accept that the boring answer is the right one…
“Yes, our product causes harm, but you can’t pass regulations saying we have to minimize harm! Then we might not be able to offer our product to as many people!”
Like um, isn’t that the entire point of the regulations? If you can’t figure out how to make your product less harmful then it’s actually good if you have to stop doing business, no?