One of the things that I find truly bizarre and makes me very suspicious of this whole "let's stop working on AI now, for our own good" discourse is how its proponents don't seem willing to address the elephant in the room -- the CCP.

The most comical part of the letter is precisely when they "call on all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months... If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium."

Governments? Like the Chinese government you mean? LOL

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Can you elaborate?

Does anyone doubt that the Chinese government is actively developing an AGI, most likely already beyond what GTP-5 will be, and that it has zero intention of ever "pausing"? This is a game in which either we all stop, or nobody does. So we just can't stop.

I focus on the CCP because of its very nature as a communist organization. They truly believe, even today, that central planning is only a matter of capabilities. AI puts "perfect planning" at their reach, finally. They have zero incentive to not develop it as fast as possible and as powerful as possible.

I think it’s a touch more nuanced than this. Personally, I doubt that most human command and control structures, including China’s, are actively seeking AGI (as it seems just as likely to turn on them as anything else). Though I certainly expect that there are wild card or black project players doing this on the margins around the all the post powerful corporation and governments.

China appears to be more focused on sharpening movement / behavioral control narrow AI but that is certainly NOT exclusive to China - look into Clearview AI and how our banks use AI models to throttle one access to services if this “suspect” something is amiss.

Having lived in China with some adjacency to the biggest tech and consulting companies there, I think we boogeyman the Chinese a bit too much, especially with the proposed solution to “competing” with China is just to become more LIKE China, with the only subtle difference being the division of control spilt between the government the corporation.

The best way to “fight” China is my view is to constrain our own politicians and corporations from behaving like Chinese ones - in effect promoting a true, freedom-aligned counter example to the “Chinese model” which unfortunately our government, and many of our citizens (on both sides of the political divide), seem foolishly eager to embrace.

AI research is just like everything else that’s digital, unstoppable once its in the wild. Fact of the matter is there are simply too many hands on this across governments, corporations, universities, research institution, military operations, etc - globally - for any proposed “pause” to be implemented with any efficacy.

The CCP already blocks ChatGPT - my friends there use VPN to access it. But at the same time the CCP is certainly running it own “state-directed” AI programs which can be seen and felt in their surveillance and restriction technology - they are certainly not going to stop or pause development and to the extent they can they will export this.

Exactly. Especially when you say that they will export their version of AI to their colonial satellites in Africa, Latin America, etc.

So the only reasonable way to counter that is to let the Western private sector to keep working on it, faster and harder even, so we have not one, but many versions of it, publicly and openly available to everyone, per market demand.

The problem with people like those whose signed that stupid letter, many of which are "experts", is that in the end they suffer the same intellectual malaise - they truly believe that THEY can plan sucessfully. If only THEY were in charge...

Spot on! I just sent another note on this thread. I think we converge onto the exact same point here.

Lol are people actually trying to make that argument? A world wide pause on AI development?

It was a letter signed among others by Elon Musk, it made quite a splash. Their main argument is that AI development "must be planned". I.e., "they" should be in charge of planning it.