🤣

Also, "we don't have to convince anyone because Bitcoin is just going to automatically inherit the earth because fiat is going to collapse and bitcoin will be the only alternative" is a pretty pseudo-religious/Book of Revelations like attitude. It's the sort of thing for which I think the rude awakening will be ... severe.

💯

I don’t think large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 are on the path to artificial general intelligence (AGI) — I’ve said this previously. In fact, I think LLMs have taken a lot of the oxygen out of the room for research around symbolic AI, which I’m inclined to think is more on that path.

My fears about AI do not stem from the idea that ChatGPT is going to kill us all. It stems from the fact that our capacity to understand LLMs is lagging far behind their rate of advancement.

So I agree with the Chomsky, Russell, Marcus, et. al. when they argue that these LLMs are merely imitation engines of a sort. I would caution that you shouldn’t downplay how disruptive LLMs are going to be to daily life over the next 3-5 years, regardless of their cognizable limitations. In particular, their inability to do model-dependent and symbolic reasoning. They simply can’t do this.

So this is not the nexus of concern. The nexus of concern is the rate of advancement, and the now fierce global competition to become the first to crack the nut of AGI (which may legitimately take decades to accomplish — but estimates vary). I’m also concerned that narrow AI and LLMs may turn into tools of mass information and drive social trust in society even deeper into the doldrums.

To summarize, ChatGPT is not the AI apocalypse. But it is a sign on the road. And it’s a sign on the road that tells us that the times to worry about ethical and societal concerns of AI is now.

I think there are things you can do to sanction companies, and focus on the commercial aspects. Anti-trust laws are an example of this. But when you start talking about criminalizing Americans for accessing a service or platform like TikTok if so banned, then that’s just a bridge too far. By a million miles.

I do happen to think TikTok is not a trustworthy platform and should be basically considered under CCP control, for all intents and purposes. However, banning access to it is not consistent with the principles of a free and open society. Some of the things policymakers are now contemplating are dangerously illiberal in the zeal to take down TikTok.

The RESTRICT Act, being one example of a impulsive to extreme overreach.

These impulses are very bad for the future prospects of an open internet. There needs to robust pushback from civil society, here. You don't fight tyranny by adopting the tools of tyranny.

People don't read past headlines.

If you're ever in LA, go to Killer Noodle. It's literally insane.

Ramen time.

The constitution was pretty clear this power was supposed to rest with Congress. Congressional power delegation to the executive branch in the post-Wilson era is something that desperately needs to be rolled back.

The bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate today, rescinding of the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force), which removes Congress’ standing authorization to allow the executive branch to conduct the “forever wars” is long overdue, and begins to pull back on the executive branches ability to unilaterally use the military without Congressional authorization.

The neocons in the Senate failed to muster the vote to stop it, and it passed 66-30.

Now I really hope the House passes it and Biden signs it.

It’s not about where we are. It’s about where we are headed. I don’t think ChatGPT is the specific threat right now. The threat is the technology beginning to advance beyond our capacity to understand it, and therefore know how to control it, and align it with human values.

The letter isn’t calling for a ban.

I don't think any individual is inherently trustworthy. I reject the populist impulse that average human is good and moral on their own, and the "elites" however they're defined, are uniquely corrupt and uniquely the source of evil in the world. I think this is deeply confused.

I believe complex collective action problems can only be addressed through unifying political institutions. I believe, although flawed, liberal democracy is our best bet right now at addressing the different equities, that balance the protection of personal freedom and self-actualization with the existence of collection action problems.

I think libertarians and anarchists who reject the existence of collective action problems and negative externalities, are simply engaging in motivated reasoning.

Some people are just more anti-American and anti-Western than they are pro-freedom. So they've become deeply morally confused on matters such as this.

I don't think there's a clean yes or no answer to your question. But I'm not an anarchist, and I'm generally okay with the state prohibiting to the personal ownership of weapons of mass destruction, and I would greatly prefer that states not possess them, either.

Do you disagree with the prohibition on personally owning nuclear weapons?

✌️

I don’t expect the petition to work. But I do hope more people start taking the dangers more seriously. 🤷‍♂️

No