[00F_]

lets say there was a global coalition of countries that considered the creation or advancement of AGI a material threat to the safety of all humans. this would qualify countries that do advanced AI research for retaliation from NATO or other international bodies that might be created. it is clear that AI is only able to move forward in an environment of cheap compute and international academic collaboration. progress in AI would slow to a snails pace if feature size were regulated, total compute were regulated like carbon emissions and explicit research on AI was banned. it would be an environment of very expensive compute and no mainstream research or collaboration. this would at the very least buy us massive amounts of time. can you say anything substantive to show otherwise?

lol neuromorphic revolution. thats cute.

[armatav]

How exactly are you planning on regulating that in China, smartass?

Or did you forget a factor in that geopolitical equation of yours?

[00F_]

i have no idea why people go straight to china every time regulating AI is brought up. its something to do with a rudimentary understanding of geopolitics i think. china. the answer to your question is the same answer to the same question regarding any country: a healthy majority of world powers forming a military-backed coalition would definitely stop outliers from carrying out the type of research that is at the leading edge of the current AI explosion. the chinese government is already worried about AGI so its ironic that everyone imagines them to be the outlier because in fact they would probably one of the first and most enthusiastic members of such a coalition. any country that wanted to resist, and that is highly unlikely given the fact that the need for regulation will become blindingly clear with every surge forward, would much rather cooperate than pursue far-fetched geopolitical strategies that involve AGI. most countries dont even output enough research to qualify for sanctions.

nobody has ever offered a lucid and axiomatic argument that shows regulation cannot work. there are two options, TRY to regulate or face a living nightmare where neither the best nor the worst outcome is even close to acceptable. it is so blindingly obvious that it boggles my mind: the only reasonable, rational response is to try to regulate, slow or stop AGI.

edit: i have a guilty confession. i was looking through your comments. i saw that you said that humans must eat meat to be healthy. i was surprised to see that and i want to tell you that i completely agree with you and i have often tried to explain to people why this is true and its like talking to a brick wall. there arent very many people who seem to get this even though its blindingly obvious. just wanted to give you a little encouragement to keep the fight going on the meat thing.

[armatav]

Haha, yeah that guy had a thing against “carnists”. Deranged.

I don’t think as the tech curve goes up there will be a long enough time period, even with a globally enforced military pact, to stop the rise of the machine. My reasoning is that there are more than enough clandestine organizations and families with a vested interest in pursuing the “power” it brings, a lot of them with a whole lot of control over these countries in our pact.

To each their own. Keep eating meat.