|
|
|
|
|
|
by richardwhiuk
2528 days ago
|
|
|
Nothing in that sounds easy. If there are N governments in the world, and they all agree to not regulate to not create general AI, then it's strongly in all of their interests to betray the others, create general AI, and capture the economic growth. Even if general AI is impossible, it's in their interests to develop huge computing capacity, because that's demonstrably economically useful. You are hypothesizing that's it's easy to get 7 billion people to all agree to co-operate in a game of prisoner's dilemma, when if a small fraction of them choose to betray, they have the potential to capture massive value. And you want to do this under the premise that AGI might be a problem. |
|
|
So you think that we should let all countries have whatever weapons they want under your logic. They will develop nukes and chemical weapons regardless of any international agreement that is established, so why even try? The obvious answer is to advance our own nuke technology as fast as possible so that we, the good guys, will lead where the arms race goes.
And AGI is a far greater existential threat than nuclear weapons. It is a greater existential threat than anything else, including global warming. It’s the biggest Pandora’s box in history. The idea of controlling or guiding its impact by having “the good guys” develop AGI first is the precipice of naivety. We lose nothing by trying to stop it. And we stand to gain more than we have ever gained from any coordinated effort. How easy or hard it might be is irrelevant, although it is much easier than basically anyone appreciates.