[flangola7]

This tech has about as much chance to continue unregulated as highly enriched uranium. There is no future-path that includes unregulated AI.

I don't like horrific government abuse of residents,and I would not mind throwing most billionaire CEOs into a pool of alligators and dissolving their corporations. I don't like Altman, I think he's a smart person with NOBUS-level reckless hubris who is softballing the magnitude of the dangera to wet. The status quo is not good and it's getting worse.z

It doesn't matter. 5 people with launch-all-the-nukes buttons is better than 500 million.

[clarge1120]

Fewer people agree with your premise, and that’s fortunate.

The “AI is dangerous” premise has no basis whatsoever. No one can prove it. No one can present a great thought experiment. Just doomsaying coupled with volume.

It’s starting to come off like a hidden agenda.

[flangola7]

> Fewer people agree with your premise, and that’s fortunate.

Datacenter NVIDIA cards are already on the export control list for potential military use, and that was pre ChatGPT and GPT-4:

>On August 26, 2022, the U.S. government, or USG, informed NVIDIA Corporation, or the Company, that the USG has imposed a new license requirement, effective immediately, for any future export to China (including Hong Kong) and Russia of the Company’s A100 and forthcoming H100 integrated circuits. DGX or any other systems which incorporate A100 or H100 integrated circuits and the A100X are also covered by the new license requirement. The license requirement also includes any future NVIDIA integrated circuit achieving both peak performance and chip-to-chip I/O performance equal to or greater than thresholds that are roughly equivalent to the A100, as well as any system that includes those circuits. A license is required to export technology to support or develop covered products. The USG indicated that the new license requirement will address the risk that the covered products may be used in, or diverted to, a ‘military end use’ or ‘military end user’ in China and Russia. The Company does not sell products to customers in Russia.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581022...

> The “AI is dangerous” premise has no basis whatsoever. No one can prove it. No one can present a great thought experiment. Just doomsaying coupled with volume.

If you increase the number of persuasive Gobbels and hackers attacking infrastructure by 100,000x you do not come away with a better world.

> It’s starting to come off like a hidden agenda.

AI was used to fake the moon landing and hide bigfoot /s

[tiberious726]

I've heard many people advancing this thesis (usually by exactly the people who would benefit from such regulation), but no cogent arguments for it. Why do you think modern large-scale statistics needs to be regulated?